ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We have in fact tried to engage the Greens and can predict what their answer will be (once they’ve finished dealing with relative minutae such as more cycle lanes, more 20 mph roads and more vegetarian choices in schools): “Socialism is a long way off and the problem of global overwarming is so urgent that we can’t wait for that. We must do something now.” This of course begs the question that something effective and lasting can be done “now”, i.e within capitalism.
No need to apologise for that. After all the French for GB is Grande Bretagne, which brings out that at one time (before the Romans came) the whole of the British Isles spoke a variety of Celtic languages. Which makes the Irish Nationalists’ objection to the term “British Isles” ironic. It’s not as if they are called the “Anglo Saxon” or the “English” Isles. I imagine that in socialism these “isles” will be a single English-speaking administrative unit off the North West coast of mainland Europe (with minority rights for Welsh speakers) which is what, linguistically speaking, they are now.
Try replying “If you believe in depopulation, why don’t you start the process by jumping off a bridge?”
Thanks but it’s him who wrote “Someone once said …” (see https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7690016-someone-once-said-that-it-is-easier-to-imagine-the) ! Maybe that was his way of making the point himself.
In any event, it seems to be true, which means that we are back to square one with those Greens and ecologists who imagine that the end of the world is nigh — we have to explain to them that they ought to think rather in terms of the end of capitalism (even if it doesn’t seem that nigh at the moment) and that in fact in not doing this they are helping prolong the problem and make it worse.
Someone once said that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.
Anyone know who? It doesn’t apply to any of us of course but I wonder many out there who are imagining the end of the world can’t imagine the end of capitalism.
You are still distorting what I say.
I said that personal survival would be a motivating factor in capitalists’ reaction IF there was a real imminent threat of human extinction. When it comes to something less hypothetical I explicitly said that it would be profit and cost considerations that would move them to do something. For example, as sea levels rise they will have to spend money to deal with the consequences (build sea defences, move populations, etc). It might be cheaper for them to use other sources for generating energy than burning fossil fuels even if more expensive. In fact this is already happened even if in a half-hearted sort of way, e.g. plans to make no more petrol-burning cars by 2040 (or whenever it), switching away from burning coal. So Sussex is not exactly accurate in saying that capitalist governments are doing NOTHING (his capitals). They are doing something even if not anything like enough and even if they wait for their profits to be effected before timidly doing something.
I hesitate to mention this news item from today’s papers (but I’ll risk being called a capitalism apologist again) but they did eventually do something about the hole in the ozone layer which was an ecological threat in the 1980s:
Gaping hole in ozone layer ‘is healing itself’ scientists say
I see that in the 1980s the doom year was fixed at 2065, i.e. at 80 years in the future ….
You’ve just done it again — accused me of being soft on capitalism. It’s the same dilemma we face as when discussing with Zeitgeist and others who say that capitalism is going to collapse in a few years or accuse the banks of being the root of all evil. When we argue against these positions we are accused of being soft on capitalism (and we are in fact saying that capitalism is not as bad as they are making out) or even of being defenders of the banksters.
Precisely the same issue we are discussing came up in this debate from 2008. Glenn Morriss (who has since joined the party) argued that it was too late as if capitalism continued it would lead to ecological disaster. In reply our representative, Brian Gardner, said that things weren’t quite that bad as capitalist governments would do be forced to do something about it when it began to affect their profits.
Poles Apart? – Capitalism or socialism … as the planet heats up
Actually, that’s not a bad idea – read what the person you are discussing with says. My concern has been to avoid exaggeration and scaremongering and I am pleased to see you have changed your position from threat of human extinction to threat of collapse of civilisation.
I have never said that capitalism will deal adequately with global warming. What I said was that IF there were to be a imminent threat of human extinction then capitalist governments would do something about it. As there isn’t and is not likely to be such a threat this is purely hypothetical. So we don’t need to indict capitalism for bringing about such a threat. The case against capitalism is strong enough. We have nothing to gain by overstating it.
My guess is that average global temperature will have risen by 1.5 degrees by 2030 (because capitalist governments won’t agree to take the measures needed to avoid it) but I doubt it will rise by 4 degrees by 2100.
Why not? Because the costs of taking steps to stop this happening will be less than allowing it to happen. (Also lots of things we can’t anticipate could happen in the 80 years to come before then.)
Assuming that you disagree with Geldorf’s statement that we or civilisation could become extinct by 2030 how would you deal with his exaggeration?
Here’s one capitalist who agrees with youse:
I never said that a rise of average global temperature by 4 degrees would not be alarming or cause serious political, social and economic disruption. I merely said it wouldn’t cause the extinction of the human species. This is not “climate denial” just “extinction denial”. Of course global temperature are rising as a result of human action, mainly burning fossil fuels.
p.s. Your “End of the World is Nigh” sandwich board is ready at Head Office. Don’t forget to grow a long beard.
Of course that’s not our policy. The point I was making was against bandying about the term “existential threat”, i.e the threat of human extinction. Talk about being alarmist! I just don’t think that this is an issue (even a rise of 4 degrees won’t being about this) and, if it was, I don’t think capitalist governments or the people they rule over would do nothing to try to stop it (the scenario in Pieter Lawrence’s novel The Last Conflict might be played out where even capitalist governments under popular pressure take drastic measures that involve inroads into the capitalist profit system to deal with the threat of a comet or an asteroid hurtling towards Earth.)
This doesn’t make capitalism a progressive system than can solve current environmental problems (or the other problems it generates). It is merely saying that it won’t bring about the extinction of the human race, a rather more serious charge against it.
Obviously nothing significant is going to be done by 2020. But I don’t think this will result in an “existential threat”. If the average global temperature rises by 2030 by the predicted 1.5 degrees, this will certainly cause problems in some parts of the world but won’t represent a threat to the existence of human life on the planet Earth (which is presumably what “existential threat means”). That would require a rise in average global temperature by much more than 1.5 degrees. I am not sure either that it would mean the beginning of “runaway global warming”, i.e, the beginning of a process that could not be stopped (not even in socialism).
I can understand what Gutteres is using such language — it’s to try to shock governments into doing something. But there is a danger in crying wolf.
If an “existential threat” does emerge I don’t think the capitalist governments of the world would just sit back and do nothing. After all, that would be a threat to them and their system. I don’t know what they would do but they would be bound to do something. I don’t know if the fact that they haven’t unleashed a nuclear war is a precedent for them stepping back from the brink.
Interesting and confirmation of an aspect of our case against movements for “national independence”. One of the arguments the Irish Nationalists used was that a separate Irish state was needed to protect and revice the Irish language. It has failed. The most vibrant Celtic language is Welsh and that has surviced without needing a separate State to sustain it. In other words, language and a state don’t have to be linked, as of course they won’t be the case in socialism.
I wasn’t defending the editor’s “joke” but merely pointing out that he lost his job as a result of a twitter campaign against him. He was bound to lose it anyway as he had damaged his employer’s commercial interest by alienating existing and potential customers. It’s since come out that he is an Old Etonian so he’s likely to land on his feet.
The lesson of this incident is that you need to be careful what you say on social media and emails, even private ones.
