EU immigration row / time to get out

[UndercoverElephant]

Thanks for taking the trouble, UE, to write a long post. I'm really busy so haven't read it all yet, But I will do.

Please read and think about the whole of it before replying to a small part. Your answer does not take into account what I posted.

[UndercoverElephant]

So that, I think, is the bottom line. Biff Vernon, and to a certain extent yourself, are advocating trying to get the whole of humanity to work together to face these immense problems, and while this is a nice idea, the reality that is actually going to play out is much closer to the one described by Jonny2Mad. There IS going to be a fight for the remaining resources and it is already too late to stop catastrophic climate change happening (so no meaningful international action is ever going to be taken). It serves no purpose to "hope" that this is not going to happen.

It seems that bottom line is that UE and J2M's version of reality is based on their certain knowledge of future events. Rather reminiscent of Beria's having predicted for some time war in Iran, which once seemed inevitable but increasingly unlikely now. As time goes on I see a fight for the remaining resources increasingly unlikely as those resources are far too remotely distributed to be worth the cost of acquiring and holding them.

As usual, a misrepresentation or "incorrect summary" of what I posted. In other words, yet another strawman from you.

What I posted was quite obviously based on observing the past and present, and with the absence of any reason to believe the future is going to be any different in this respect, assuming that it isn't going to be any different. Unless human nature suddenly changes, there is no reason to expect all the nations of the world to start acting in our collective self-interest rather than each of them acting in their own self interest as they always have done.

The trend already appears to be away from nation states, as Biff and others have noted. Even the US and China are part of larger economic co-operation areas now. I think it safe to say I do not agree with your idea of what 'reality' is.

There is no trend "away from nation states". That is also a misrepresentation of what is happening.

Firstly there is a trend towards corporate globalism. This has nothing to do with democracy or governance by any recognised method and everything to do with a tiny minority - the proverbial 1% - who have usurped power from democratically elected national bodies and other national governments. This is, in effect, a coup. But it has nothing to do with anything Biff or the other contributors here, J2M included, actually want, because those corporations serve nobody but themselves and their shareholders. They care nothing about other people, or about the environment, animals, sustainability, justice, the future of humanity or anything else but their own profits.

Secondly there is a trend towards the building of ever-larger political units (such as the US and the EU). This trend has been in place since the dawn of civilisation, but my post quite clearly explains why it will not and cannot go all the way to a global "nation". These ever-larger units, when actually a creation of political forces rather than commercial ones, exist in order to compete with other groups of humans - other nations and groups of nations. My post provided a detailed argument as to why this cannot happen on a global scale - a detailed argument which you, as usual, have completely ignored.

[AndySir]

As usual, a misrepresentation or "incorrect summary" of what I posted. In other words, yet another strawman from you.

What I posted was quite obviously based on observing the past and present, and with the absence of any reason to believe the future is going to be any different in this respect, assuming that it isn't going to be any different. Unless human nature suddenly changes, there is no reason to expect all the nations of the world to start acting in our collective self-interest rather than each of them acting in their own self interest as they always have done.

I'll leave it to others to judge the distinction between my summary and your clarification. It is too subtle for me to make out.

My post provided a detailed argument as to why this cannot happen on a global scale - a detailed argument which you, as usual, have completely ignored.

Ironically I never claimed it would happen on a global scale, so not sure why I would have to address that point. Is there some kind of name for making up your own version of an argument so that you can knock it down easier? I'll need to look it up.

I'm not sure what your point is. There's not a trend away from nation states, just a trend towards some other things? Is it simply that you don't like those other things? Remind me, who was it that was living in fluffybunnyland?

[RenewableCandy]

reprieve in fluffybunnyland...

[UndercoverElephant]

reprieve in fluffybunnyland

...

Not all of them have stopped, unfortunately. But make no mistake, this was about profits. It would have been too damaging to their reputations to continue.

[UndercoverElephant]

next bit

"nations" are, by default, the largest units that have managed to evolve a unified cultural system of government. These have nearly always been forged out of a collective desire for protection against outsiders, or about a single strong man

The EU is larger than a 'nation', it is evolving a unified cultural system of government, was forged out of a collective desire for protection against insiders, and in the fresh memory of a single strong man whose experience was not wanted to be repeated.

Hitler knew that if Europe was going to be able to compete with large nations like the US and Russia and the then British empire, it would have to be unified. Previous attempts to unify it politically had failed, so he decided to try to do it by force. After he failed with disastrous side effects for all concerned, a group of European politicians decided to do it politically. But the underlying reason for this unification was the need to compete with other large nations and blocks of nations, as already explained. If Europe had not existed as part of a larger world, that underlying reason would never have been there.

If you want to address the real point I am making then think about the relationship between the US and the UN. There is your problem. For your model of the future to work, the US would have to start taking serious notice of the UN instead of just using it as a tool when it saw it as being in its own interests to do so. And I am sorry, but in the real world the probability of this happening is precisely nil.

I don't know why I am even bothering to try reasoning with you. We are 30 years down the line after climate change became known about as a real and present danger, and greenhouse emissions are still rising. You are talking about some sort of globally-policed crime of ecocide? I'm sorry Mr Vernon, but you are still firmly rooted in fluffybunnyland. Your opinions are worthless. They have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reality, and anybody with any sense will not take the slightest bit of notice of anything that comes out of your mouth.

[UndercoverElephant]

BiffVernon,

The existing political systems exist for a reason. They did not come about by accident but by a long process. That history has all been about power. The history of politics, the history of religions, the history of wars and conflicts...the entire history of human civilisation has been one long power struggle involving different groups of people. This is absolutely fundamental to who and what we are. The world of human affairs works the way it does because human psychology is the way it is, and it's all about who gets the power, how they get it and what they do with it.

Your beliefs about the world, what you advocate as policy and what you say you hope will happen all involve some sort "not giving up hope" on there being some sort of radical change in the way human affairs work. You are lobbying for, and apparently believe you are working towards, some sort of new world where the way human affairs work has changed out of all recognition, allowing everybody to live in peace together and avoid an ecological catastrophe. This is remarkably similar to the religious beliefs in something like a "new age" or "kingdom of God" where human affairs are radically altered in a similar way. The religious version is about humans voluntarily submitting to the will of God - giving up their own free will for the greater good administered by God. Your version is about humans voluntarily giving up power and freedom to a benevolent state or international authority, which they trust to act in the greatest good of all. Quite frankly, I'd sooner trust a higher supernatural power to do this than a bunch of humans who have got control of the whole world, but both scenarios are in fact fantastical nonsense. There is not going to be a Kingdom of God, Jesus is not coming back to rule over us, there is not going to be a New Metaphysical Age and there's never going to be a benevolent international government ruling over a peaceful human race which lives in harmony with nature.

You are free to believe whatever you want. I am free to point out that your views are every bit as ludicrous and dangerous as their religious counterparts, and do everything I can to make sure nobody takes you seriously. There are real people out there like Jonny2Mad who see you as a joke. They are preparing for what is actually coming, and know full well that when the shit actually hits the fan, people like you won't last more than about a week. And if people like you were allowed to run this country, then when the shit hits the fan, this country wouldn't last more than about a week either.

Here is the truth, BiffVernon: If I was forced to choose between either yourself or J2M to be the making the tough decisions about the future of the UK, I would have no realistic option but to choose J2M. To choose you would be to choose suicide, as he gleefully points out regularly. You are apparently proud of this. I don't think it is anything to be proud of. If you want to stop people who think like J2M from gaining positions of power, then you need to offer people a realistic alternative rather than fantasies.

[clv101]

One of the really interesting things about these kind of debates, politics, climate, energy, population... is how incredibly sure everyone is that they are right! The simple fact that we don't all agree about everything proves that we can't all be right, most likely most of us are wrong about most things.

What are we to make of it when someone comes out with absolute statements like:

For your model of the future to work, the US would have to start taking serious notice of the UN instead of just using it as a tool when it saw it as being in its own interests to do so. And I am sorry, but in the real world the probability of this happening is precisely nil.

We don't know that, no one knows how the relationship between the US and UN is going to evolve in coming decades. Hell, the dollar could collapse, the US could fragment into two or three separate nations after a civil war! I'd give that scenario a 10% chance of occurring in the next couple of decades. I might even give a higher chance of a major earthquake taking out a good chunk of California and with it the US economy over the next few decades.

It is common for protagonists in debate to exaggerate their certainty. We're more likely to agree with arguments expressed confidently. However the black and white clarity with which many in this thread have been describing the future geopolitical and ecological trajectory of the planet is astounding.

Sure, we have views and opinions, we also hold differing values (not nearly as different as the tone of this discussion would suggest though!) but none of us has a monopoly on reality, not about next week let along the next decade.

[vtsnowedin]

One of the really interesting things about these kind of debates, politics, climate, energy, population... is how incredibly sure everyone is that they are right! The simple fact that we don't all agree about everything proves that we can't all be right, most likely most of us are wrong about most things.

What are we to make of it when someone comes out with absolute statements like:

For your model of the future to work, the US would have to start taking serious notice of the UN instead of just using it as a tool when it saw it as being in its own interests to do so. And I am sorry, but in the real world the probability of this happening is precisely nil.

We don't know that, no one knows how the relationship between the US and UN is going to evolve in coming decades. Hell, the dollar could collapse, the US could fragment into two or three separate nations after a civil war! I'd give that scenario a 10% chance of occurring in the next couple of decades. I might even give a higher chance of a major earthquake taking out a good chunk of California and with it the US economy over the next few decades.

It is common for protagonists in debate to exaggerate their certainty. We're more likely to agree with arguments expressed confidently. However the black and white clarity with which many in this thread have been describing the future geopolitical and ecological trajectory of the planet is astounding.

Sure, we have views and opinions, we also hold differing values (not nearly as different as the tone of this discussion would suggest though!) but none of us has a monopoly on reality, not about next week let along the next decade.

A very thought provoking post. Very insightful.

[biffvernon]

Your opinions are worthless.

I guess that's true as folk rarely pay me for my opinions. It does, however, make me wonder why you take so much notice of what you claim to be my opinions that you write about them at a faster rate than I have spare time to read them.

[woodburner]

One of the really interesting things about these kind of debates, politics, climate, energy, population... is how incredibly sure everyone is that they are right! The simple fact that we don't all agree about everything proves that we can't all be right, most likely most of us are wrong about most things.

Oops, you've found me out .

It is common for protagonists in debate to exaggerate their certainty. We're more likely to agree with arguments expressed confidently.

I usually react against it, as excessive confidence is often a cover for insecurity. It indicates a belief or faith, rather than a position based on supporting evidence.

[biffvernon]

And so back to the long post of yesterday, episode 3, here's the next paragraph.

The reason why we are "stuck in the national paradigm", as previously discussed, is that without some sort of threat external to the whole human race, such as hostile aliens, there is no cultural pressure - or in terms of evolution no selective pressure - for this to change. There is no reason to make the step from the largest national units we have at the moment, to a global system, because it will always be in the interests of the most powerful existing national units to try to maintain that power in order to have a greater say in what happens to the human race as a totality. It is NEVER going to be in the interests of, say, the US, to relinquish national power to a global body.

I think global warming is a threat to whole human race. A great deal of work is currently going on to build a climate change treaty and at Warsaw earlier this month we saw every nation, including the USA, agreeing to work towards making a treaty happen. (Whether they/we will succeed in time is for the future and therefore not certain.) We do already have, as I mentioned before, several global treaties through which nations, including the USA, have already relinquished power to a global body. More are in the pipeline.

[biffvernon]

...advocating trying to get the whole of humanity to work together to face these immense problems, and while this is a nice idea, the reality that is actually going to play out is much closer to the one described by Jonny2Mad. There IS going to be a fight for the remaining resources and it is already too late to stop catastrophic climate change happening (so no meaningful international action is ever going to be taken). It serves no purpose to "hope" that this is not going to happen.

I'm a pessimist and think we are probably doomed, but I will not give up hope. It's good to know that you think that trying to get the whole of humanity to work together to face these immense problems is a nice idea. I agree with you.

[biffvernon]

Skipped a few bit's but no time to answer everything point by point:

The realist response to the current state of the world is itself up for debate. It does not have to be ultra-right wing like J2M. It can be left wing. But that left wing response is represented on this board - or at least it has been up to now - by people like myself and Stevecook. I suspect BiffVernon will not actually have read this post, but if he is then I would like him to think about this. Because it is HIS posts, primarily, that are driving people like myself and Steve out of this community. He might mean well, but what he is actually achieving is the alienation of those people who are trying to find the most left-wing solution that are realistically possible. In other words, his "idealism" is causing real damage to the movement he sees himself at the forefront of. He's harming his own side (the political left) and helping his enemies (right wingers like J2M). This has been explained to him before, but he's too damned stubborn to understand it or incorporate it into this thinking and behaviour.

I might also add that the above paragraph describes a position very similar to that taken by Paul Kingsnorth. He's said almost exactly the same thing - that false hope is worse than no hope and that the idealists within the green movement are actually causing more problems than they are solving. THEY are the roadblock to real change, at least from the point of view of the realists within the green movement. Precisely the same frustration has driven Derrick Jensen even further, to the point of advocating accelerating the demise of industrial civilisation. Jensen sees BiffVernon as an unwitting agent of the true enemy, and I'm sorry to say that so do I.

So, BiffVernon, the problem is not that I have misunderstood what you are saying. I understand it all too well. I just happen to think it is a load of dangerous nonsense and that if you want to help instead of hinder the environmental movement, then it is time to grow up, stop the fluffybunny thinking, and face reality as it actually is. Alternatively you can go on posting nonsense and J2M will continue to benefit from it.

Yes, I see myself on 'the left' though as time goes by I think the left/right dichotomy is becoming less important. I've always thought of 'the left' as an international movement (Marx was a notable immigrant to the UK and is buried in London). I've a good deal of sympathy with much of what Paul Kingsnorth writes. I've not read any of Derrick Jensen's books but from what I know of his work I think my position may be quite close to his. I certainly advocate accelerating the demise of industrial civilisation, which some folk may find disturbing.

What I am not clear about, UE, is what you would like me to do. Saying "it is time to grow up, stop the fluffybunny thinking, and face reality as it actually is", doesn't help much. What, in practical terms, should I actually do?

[UndercoverElephant]

One of the really interesting things about these kind of debates, politics, climate, energy, population... is how incredibly sure everyone is that they are right! The simple fact that we don't all agree about everything proves that we can't all be right, most likely most of us are wrong about most things.

What are we to make of it when someone comes out with absolute statements like:

For your model of the future to work, the US would have to start taking serious notice of the UN instead of just using it as a tool when it saw it as being in its own interests to do so. And I am sorry, but in the real world the probability of this happening is precisely nil.

We don't know that, no one knows how the relationship between the US and UN is going to evolve in coming decades. Hell, the dollar could collapse, the US could fragment into two or three separate nations after a civil war! I'd give that scenario a 10% chance of occurring in the next couple of decades. I might even give a higher chance of a major earthquake taking out a good chunk of California and with it the US economy over the next few decades.

Sure, in the specific case I mentioned the situation may change. Maybe the US will fall off its perch as the most powerful nation on Earth. In fact I'd say it was a dead certainty, and that it will be replaced by China. And maybe things will get really bad and the US will break up into several smaller, weaker chunks. But even as you are pointing out that this specific case may change, you are implicitly acknowledging the general rule I was really talking about. You're suggesting that only if the US declines in power will it start co-operating with the UN instead of trying to use it. And there will still be some "most powerful" nations on Earth - most likely China and Russia, and they will simply replace the US as nations which do not have to take any notice of the UN. The bottom line is that the UN does not have any real power.