ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
Alanj wrote:
I don’t think we can frighten fellow-workers into socialism.
Excactly. We can’t and we shouldn’t try to. That would be counter-productive as fear makes people open to authoritariansm.
What we have got to offer in hope. We need to be technological optimists and point to what kind of different world is possible given the degree of technological development that has been reached and is still to come.
But there are people around, many concerned about climate change, who criticise technology, who even blame technology. They don’t like genetic engineering (which can increase food yields). They don’t like nuclear energy (which is an obvious alternative source of energy to burning fossils fuels). And now they have turned their guns on plastics (the obvious alternative use for fossil fuels instead of burning them).
Yes, capitalism misuses technology like everything else, but technology is the hope of the future. We should defend it, not join the anti-progress brigade who criticise it.
There’s another vegan joke in today’s Sun
How do you know if someone if a vegan. Don’t worry. They’ll tell you.
It would be nice to think that people tell the same joke about Socialists.
Editorial from yesterday’s Times:
The editor of Waitrose’s Food magazine is not a fan of vegans. When a freelance journalist suggested to William Sitwell,that he feature some vegan recipes, he emailed back his idea for “a series on killing vegans, one by one”. This exchange, for which Mr Sitwell has since apologised, encapsulated how many people feel about vegans and veganism. They regard it as an irritating and disruptive fad promulgated by zealots and eccentrics.
You can say that again.
The combination of arguments in favour of at least a reduction in eating meat is too compelling to be dismissed. It should remain a choice, and campaigners should be aware of the line between argument and hectoring, but at least we can acknowledge that vegans have a point.
Yes, ok. Even I eat less meat than before (not even once a day) but not because of vegetarian and vegan hectoring.
p.s. The unfortunate Sitwell has since been hounded out of his job by a twitter campaign against him.
Pakistan is rather behind Ireland on this issue. So are some other countries:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-46046074
