Moderator: Peak Moderation
How about the ever increasing numbers in the Calais camps then? Or the ones jumping into boats to get to the Canary islands or Spain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/fe ... immigrants) or Malta or Italy or Samos(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11324763)?biffvernon wrote:I just don't draw much distinction between folk from Berkshire and those from Outer Mongolia.
How can the poor part of the world become as rich as us? The reason we're in the current mess - both climatic and energy - is that there are already far more rich people than the world can sustain.biffvernon wrote: Of course we should make the poor part of the world as rich as us, or failing that, make us as poor as the poor part of the world.
Of course it can't. But for the poor of this world to become even a little richer we will have to become poorer as we share out the world's limited and dwindling resources.Ludwig wrote:How can the poor part of the world become as rich as us? The reason we're in the current mess - both climatic and energy - is that there are already far more rich people than the world can sustain.
You make me laugh Biff!make us as poor as the poor part of the world
I got your meaning the first time round. It's not that difficult to understand. Just difficult to want to understand.biffvernon wrote:So it's just fine to maintain the wealth differentials across the world?
Well I don't think it's just fine. Of course the poor world can't become like us - we don't have a few spare planets - and selling the idea that we have to become as poor as the poor half of the world gets laughed out of court - as we've seen in the posts above.
So what to do? It's like the energy thing, there have to be loads of little wedges that all contribute in the right direction. More aid, of the right sort, that actually aids rather than increases dependency, fairer trading relationships, an end to dumping surpluses, and yes, the removal of barriers to migration.
But most of all we do have to become poorer. Poorer, that is, in sense that we use less resources, just our fair share of renewable resources and wean ourselves off the non-renewable resources completely. Of course that does not mean we have to have a lower quality of life, less happiness. Quality of life and happiness is something that can be equalised across the globe, because it does not have to be dependent on exploitation of either the resources or of our fellow humans.
It's not easy and it won't happen by tea-time tomorrow but we can all make a start. Before tea-time.
Nah, I did understand it - just I didn't agree. I was being flippant - my bad. There are multiple threads on this particular topic (as you can imagine)emordnilap wrote:I got your meaning the first time round. It's not that difficult to understand. Just difficult to want to understand.biffvernon wrote:So it's just fine to maintain the wealth differentials across the world?
Well I don't think it's just fine. Of course the poor world can't become like us - we don't have a few spare planets - and selling the idea that we have to become as poor as the poor half of the world gets laughed out of court - as we've seen in the posts above.
So what to do? It's like the energy thing, there have to be loads of little wedges that all contribute in the right direction. More aid, of the right sort, that actually aids rather than increases dependency, fairer trading relationships, an end to dumping surpluses, and yes, the removal of barriers to migration.
But most of all we do have to become poorer. Poorer, that is, in sense that we use less resources, just our fair share of renewable resources and wean ourselves off the non-renewable resources completely. Of course that does not mean we have to have a lower quality of life, less happiness. Quality of life and happiness is something that can be equalised across the globe, because it does not have to be dependent on exploitation of either the resources or of our fellow humans.
It's not easy and it won't happen by tea-time tomorrow but we can all make a start. Before tea-time.
Biff altough I sense that you are being slightly toungue in cheek this basically is the size of it isn't it. They said when they came in that they were going to focus on what you can do instead of what you can't. Now that isn't neccacarily a bad thing (someone with no legs could indeed do a desk job) as long as its accompanied by a bit more joined up thinking (not different departments with different rules so people fall through the gaps) and is done in a way that empowers disabled people rather than stigmatises them.biffvernon wrote:Why would you need to get a sick note just because you had no legs? They would expect you to take a sitting down job.MrG wrote: I mean if you physically had no feet to stretch Biffs analogy.. Ok say you had no legs.. would the tory bastards expect you to go get a sick note every month in case they grew back?
Haven't we also historically done something very similar when peoples traditional way of life didn't revolve around having a nation state i.e. nomadic tribal peoples. Didn't we go and then divide up the map and create nation states in order to foster the same interests you are talking about. Didn't this then create problems where for example more than one nomadic group can use the same bit of land for different things in relative harmony. The history of afganistan would be an example I believe.There are people living subsistence lifestyles throughout the world who are quite happy living that way and don't want to be forced into the 21st Century. But Western economists and industrialists want them forced out of subsistence to join the great rush for GROWTH because, at a subsistence level , they don't contribute to growth.
If they are turfed off their land, that land can be turned over to large scale farming which, although it may produce less than the potential of subsistence farmed land, consumes more agricultural products and this makes western corporations more money. Those ex subsistence farmers now have to buy food which is usually produced by western corporations. They have to be housed which again can make money.
Once out of a subsistence level of living, they contribute to GNP and thus growth. They are no happier, probably even less happy, than before but economists do not put a value on happiness just as they don't put a value on the environment. People living a subsistence lifestyle, who are happy that way, should be left in peace and guaranteed the lands the have to live that way.
MrG wrote:Can't listen to that in work - what happened to him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gardner_(journalist)In 1995 he joined BBC World as a producer and reporter, and became the BBC's first full-time Gulf correspondent in 1998, setting up an office in Dubai. In 2000 Gardner was appointed BBC Middle East correspondent in charge of the bureau in Cairo, but traveled throughout the region. After September 11, 2001 attacks on New York, from 2002 Gardner specialised solely in covering stories related to the War on Terror.
"He was always cut out for journalism. When Kuwait was liberated, he was there with his camera, doing a piece like a reporter. He's a good communicator, incredibly good at thinking on his feet, knows how to handle situations spontaneously and comes across really well. I met him studying Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University and described him as incredibly widely-travelled, especially in the Middle East. In one year he travelled to 28 countries. He's the sort of guy who will get through a passport because he runs out of room," said friend of 25 years Anthony Campanale.[4]
On 6 June 2004, while reporting from a suburb of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Gardner was shot six times and seriously injured in an attack by al-Qaeda sympathisers.[5] His colleague Irish cameraman Simon Cumbers was shot dead. Of the bullets which hit Gardner in his torso (others passed through his shoulder and leg) most missed his major organs yet one hit his spinal nerves and he was left partly paralysed in the legs and dependent on a wheelchair for life. The Saudi Arabian government had forced Gardner to use official minders, who ran away once the firing started. The Saudi government promised compensation but in the end they never paid. [1]
After 14 operations, 7 months in hospital and months of rehabilitation he returned to reporting for the BBC in mid-2005, using a wheelchair or a frame.[6] Despite his injury, he still occasionally reports from the field including places like Afghanistan[7] but usually comments on top stories from a BBC studio.
In 2005, for services to journalism, he was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire as part of the Queen's Birthday Honours.
