Anyone see Paxman interviewing Russell Brand?

[biffvernon]

Take this paragraph from Webb:

But I do think that when you end a piece about politics with the injunction “I will never vote and I don’t think you should either”, then you’re actively telling a lot of people that engagement with our democracy is a bad idea. That just gives politicians the green light to neglect the concerns of young people because they've been relieved of the responsibility of courting their vote.

There's a fundamental error here. He equates not voting with not engaging with the political process. That's not the case. To not vote is to register an opinion of 'none of the above' and that sends a serious message to politicians.

Of course I disagree with Brand inasmuch as I think people should vote Green but that's another matter.

But, importantly, Webb has completely missed Brand';s central theme that the current system is completely broken, leading us all, via global warming, to Hell in a handcart. Webb, like so much of the political establishment, is in denial.

[woodburner]

The trouble is, it's not broken. It does just what the politicians in power want it to do.

[biffvernon]

Only in the short term. If you look at it from the perspective of, say, my new granddaughter, who should rightly expect to live into the 22nd century, It is really, seriously broken. Current policy will send global warming to catastrophic levels in her lifetime, making life for large swathes of the world's population impossible. She will witness the mass die off that some of us have been fearing for a long time.

And you say it's not broken!

[woodburner]

OK, define "the system". I was referring to the electoral system, you must have been thinking of something else. Politicians are only interested in the short term.

Nobody can rightly expect to live to any age. The only alternative to living is dead. That happens to people at all ages in all societies. Some people don't make it to the end of the first day, others get beyond the first century, just.

Your granddaughter will probably have a lower life expectancy (it is already reducing for younger people), as your and my age range suffered the early days of mass market processed foods, and the effect will be most marked on the female side of the line. I don't eat much of those type of foods now, as I've seen the light. However, that's too late, breeding happens before we get the necessary knowledge. It's at grandmother level that most of the effects occur. Your granddaughter will suffer from peer pressure to have lots of contemporary gadgets (no matter how you try to influence it), so contributing to the environmental trend you are trying to prevent. She will probably consume too much sugar, salt and fat (but the wrong unsaturated fats) in processed foods. Will quite likely smoke, dabble with the equivalent of extacy, and drink alcohol, pretending it has therapeutic benefits. The probability is greater if she goes to university.

She will also have to suffer the effects of GM crops.

Lastly there is no way to avoid the mass die off at some time, Albert Bartlett gives the low down on this.

[boisdevie]

The trouble is, it's not broken. It does just what the politicians in power want it to do.

The system that exists exists because the majority are too apathetic to change it. And I suspect politicians know full well that if they really enancted legislation to reduce the UK contribution to global warming then they would never ever get elected again.

[biffvernon]

Paxman agrees with Brand:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/01/jeremy-pa ... w-4170468/

[biffvernon]

OK, define "the system". I was referring to the electoral system, you must have been thinking of something else. Politicians are only interested in the short term.

Nobody can rightly expect to live to any age. The only alternative to living is dead. That happens to people at all ages in all societies. Some people don't make it to the end of the first day, others get beyond the first century, just.

Your granddaughter will probably have a lower life expectancy (it is already reducing for younger people), as your and my age range suffered the early days of mass market processed foods, and the effect will be most marked on the female side of the line. I don't eat much of those type of foods now, as I've seen the light. However, that's too late, breeding happens before we get the necessary knowledge. It's at grandmother level that most of the effects occur. Your granddaughter will suffer from peer pressure to have lots of contemporary gadgets (no matter how you try to influence it), so contributing to the environmental trend you are trying to prevent. She will probably consume too much sugar, salt and fat (but the wrong unsaturated fats) in processed foods. Will quite likely smoke, dabble with the equivalent of extacy, and drink alcohol, pretending it has therapeutic benefits. The probability is greater if she goes to university.

She will also have to suffer the effects of GM crops.

Lastly there is no way to avoid the mass die off at some time, Albert Bartlett gives the low down on this.

I pretty much disagree with every bit of that! I'm rather pleased that my granddaughter has a mother who runs a very healthy food business. My son may like to chip in to explain just how little he is affected by peer pressure. His life-style seems to be heading in a very un-peer-pressured direction. Seriously niche!

[RenewableCandy]

Paxman agrees with Brand:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/01/jeremy-pa ... w-4170468/

I happened to see that when it went out. I was rather gobsmacked.

[oobers]

Take this paragraph from Webb:

But I do think that when you end a piece about politics with the injunction “I will never vote and I don’t think you should either”, then you’re actively telling a lot of people that engagement with our democracy is a bad idea. That just gives politicians the green light to neglect the concerns of young people because they've been relieved of the responsibility of courting their vote.

There's a fundamental error here. He equates not voting with not engaging with the political process. That's not the case. To not vote is to register an opinion of 'none of the above' and that sends a serious message to politicians.

This idea of voting 'none of the above' has come up before. Is there any country that does allow for this option formally on the ballot paper? Could we encourage a local council to try it and see if it spreads up to Westminster? I think the trouble with just not voting is that whilst the non voter may well be registering their opinion that they support none of the above, the politicians will just say it is evidence of apathy and a need to engage people more in politics. A 'none of the above' box to tick would be a very clear signal that they are not apathetic at all.

[biffvernon]

It would probably be quite hard to get a 'None of the above' box onto the ballot paper since the people who control these things are the above.

[leroy]

Of course not. What you are doing there is the work of your masters, whether you realize it or not, by means of attempting to make everyone else feel as feel as atomized and alienated as you. I suspect you are doing it because you, yourself, have had a lifetime of conditioning to make sure you have no sense of fellowship with your fellow citizens but, instead, see everyone else as a potential mark.

Sorry to backtrack a little on the conversation, and I have deep regard for much of what you say Steve, but isn't the 'fellowship' that others may be lacking somewhat related to Biff's adherence to non-violence? I don't know the guy myself, and I suppose that there may be some malevolent faction in the face of whom we must take up arms, but violence in general seems to me to be a failure to understand commonality between us all. Perhaps I'm being simplistic....

[Little John]

Of course not. What you are doing there is the work of your masters, whether you realize it or not, by means of attempting to make everyone else feel as feel as atomized and alienated as you. I suspect you are doing it because you, yourself, have had a lifetime of conditioning to make sure you have no sense of fellowship with your fellow citizens but, instead, see everyone else as a potential mark.

Sorry to backtrack a little on the conversation, and I have deep regard for much of what you say Steve, but isn't the 'fellowship' that others may be lacking somewhat related to Biff's adherence to non-violence? I don't know the guy myself, and I suppose that there may be some malevolent faction in the face of whom we must take up arms, but violence in general seems to me to be a failure to understand commonality between us all. Perhaps I'm being simplistic....

Most people are communalistic by nature. A few, sadly, are not. Most people, however, are extremely adaptable to whatever their environment demands of them. Thus, we live in a system than demands us to be atomized and ruthless competitors. Paradoxically, we also have an undercurrent to our culture that refuses to be extinguished that emphasises out common fellowship. The reason it refuses to die is because it is in our bones. We are a social species. This instinct is based on our evolutionary history and ultimately only extends so far as we perceive our immediate community to extend. but it exists, nonetheless. Like any other instinct, it can be usurped and or/manipulated. Similarly, we also have an instinct for ruthless self-preservation, when push come to shove. Again, this can be brought to the fore, or it can be properly assimilated as merely one of the drivers of our behaviour. We currently live in a system where it is disproportionately rewarded and the reason for this is because the people at the top who are composing the tune that the rest of us must dance to are psychopaths who are forcing the rest of us to behave in their image. That undercurrent of communalism I was mentioning has been co-opted and used against us in order to keep us quiet.

These fuckers will not go quietly and there is no pint in pretending otherwise.

edit to add:

rushed post and so full of typos and lack of logical structure.

will do again later.

[RenewableCandy]

Steve, that is an excellent point and you were beaten to it by Mr Bevan in about 1945. He was basically saying that the til-then way of doing things (i.e. plain capitalism with no welfare state) was in fact incompatible with human nature: the nature that shows in (for example) family love and (the good side of!) most religions.

He's quoted in Austerity Britain on about p. 233. I read that bit several times and savoured the gobsmacking sensation of each time.

[biffvernon]

Brand replies to Webb

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013 ... revolution

[RenewableCandy]

I suppose it depends on what Brand meant by "revolution" in the first place. If it were the good old-fashioned chucking-out-the-ruling-types-by-force type, then perhaps Webb has a point. Revolutions tend to destroy a lot of stuff including useful infrastructure that we may no longer have the energy to rebuild. They also tend to traumatise people for more than a generation, rendering them less able to adapt, for example. to life with lower energy. I could go on...