Aware.
- Thread starter mk one
- Start date
fiendish feet
Retro Guru
Spot on Mark
dazdc5
Retro Guru
Re:
Says who? How do you know?
So why, does the beeb go to such lengths to get yootoob to delete his vids... one mans opinion? There's two sides to every arguement but for some reason they want to hide the fact there may just be a few descrepancies in this insidious 'natural' plandemic.
I got bored writing this, there is just so much to cover to then just have someone :roll: it.
Just go check some alternative facts yourself ... the bbc aint always right and the govt have certainly told us some porkies and cover ups in the past yes? Go check the World Economic Forum or the World Healh Organization, Google or Bill and Melinder Gates Foundation, Haarp or as Fiendish says Agenda 2030 .... it is worrying.
I can wear a foil hat .. I can roll my eyes :facepalm:
and let the original thinkers watch the BBC
legrandefromage":1sfpraz9 said:
Says who? How do you know?
So why, does the beeb go to such lengths to get yootoob to delete his vids... one mans opinion? There's two sides to every arguement but for some reason they want to hide the fact there may just be a few descrepancies in this insidious 'natural' plandemic.
dazdc5":1sfpraz9 said:
I got bored writing this, there is just so much to cover to then just have someone :roll: it.
Just go check some alternative facts yourself ... the bbc aint always right and the govt have certainly told us some porkies and cover ups in the past yes? Go check the World Economic Forum or the World Healh Organization, Google or Bill and Melinder Gates Foundation, Haarp or as Fiendish says Agenda 2030 .... it is worrying.
I can wear a foil hat .. I can roll my eyes :facepalm:
and let the original thinkers watch the BBC
Re:
A must join ......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_fl ... _societies
Well I have just been out on my bike and it wasn't flat on the roads I used :?
Each to their own.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/p ... 92,00.html
A must join ......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_fl ... _societies
Well I have just been out on my bike and it wasn't flat on the roads I used :?
Each to their own.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/p ... 92,00.html
fiendish feet
Retro Guru
Re: Re:
Wikipedia Oy Vey !! Comradebagpuss":1k7a2w34 said:
CassidyAce
Senior Retro Guru
Re:
Geo-engineering: this is not a conspiracy but neither is it ignored by the mainstream media. Not even the BBC. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30197085) Cloud seeding, for example, has been used for years. There isn't any great secret. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long ... 60146.html There are aspects that can cause concern: things can go wrong, the substances used, etc. Perhaps the biggest concern, though, is that environmental irresponsibility will proceed unchecked because climate engineering is believed capable of fixing global warming. Even if climate manipulation can be implemented successfully, there would not necessarily be equal ability to use it: inequality in the distribution of goods is matched by inequality in the distribution of ‘bads’. There could be a grim future in which even greater power - power over the climate - is concentrated in the hands of the few. (I expect that there are a few conspiracy theories surrounding geo-engineering but I haven’t got time for those.)
On the other hand, I find Rosa Koire’s views (which seem to have little to do with geo-engineering) obnoxious. To explain why, I need to explain the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’. (The idea dates back to the 1880s but was popularised by Garrett Hardin in a seminal article in 1968: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 3.full.pdf.) Imagine a village cow pasture that is open to all villagers who herd cattle. Each individual cow herder can profit more and more by adding extra cattle to the pasture. After all, there is no fee for using the pasture. It’s so obviously a way to make extra profit that each and every cow herder adds more cattle to the pasture, and more cattle, and more cattle . . . Until the pasture is overgrazed and ruined; and then they all lose. The problem is that the profits are gained individually but the costs are spread collectively. Or put another way, when individuals do not experience the full costs of using a resource, they will tend to overuse it. And this dynamic applies to common resources such as air quality, common fishing waters, the atmosphere above us, etc. These are all ‘commons’ and the ‘collective’ that will incur the costs is you, me, our children, people we’ve never met, future generations . . . Since the profits are individual but the costs collective, it needs collective regulation to prevent overuse.
Rosa Koire objects to such regulation and that’s one reason why I find her views obnoxious. For the last few decades, Western governments have tended to follow neo-liberal agendas, facilitating the pursuit of individual profit while driving down protection for the collective. As we’ve just seen, individuals pursuing their own profit will not generate sustainability. So, more emphasis needs to be placed on the good of the overall collective or community: that’s the communitarianism she objects to. Of course, it’s possible to go to the opposite extreme; there needs to be a balance between the good of the community and individual liberty and gain. That is not communism: it’s freedom tempered with social responsibility so that others can enjoy what we are free to enjoy. At a global level, that means effective, international regulations, not the global dictatorship in Koire’s scaremongering caricature.
She suggests that public-private partnerships are ‘fascism’: that’s pure hyperbole and undermines both the identification of genuine fascism and the critique of its horrors. Public-private partnerships might be vulnerable to corruption but they’re not fascism. If anything, they’re part of the neo-liberal agenda, in this case facilitating private profit from state projects. Again, Koire’s views strike me as obnoxious, dishonest scaremongering.
She also criticises the UN’s emphasis on ‘equity’ but equity (as in fairness) is vital: if impoverished people are faced with a choice of watching their children starve or, say, getting a job chopping down rainforests, the latter will appear the lesser of two evils. All too often, poverty creates an incentive structure where the environmentally damaging option appears the only viable option. Remove poverty and the incentive structure changes. Even in the affluent west, inequality has not been redressed; instead, the tension caused by inequality has been softened by promoting economic growth. Of course, the poor still have a miniscule percentage of the pie, but the pie is bigger so it doesn’t seem so bad. But that is simply problem-displacement: the problem of inequality is ‘solved’ by creating a new problem, in this case pursuing indefinite growth with finite resources. So, equity is not the evil attempt to make Americans as poor as those in the developing countries, as Koire claims; it’s just a demand for equality of opportunity.
However, it’s true that typical Western lifestyles will have to change. It’s not even possible for everyone to enjoy those lifestyles right now, let alone for them to continue into the future. So, I don’t have much sympathy with Koire’s whinging about Americans not being able to use their cars as they wish (classic case of not experiencing the full costs) or not being able to use ‘their’ land as they wish (land which was stolen from the Native Americans anyway). It’s the spoiled and irresponsible moaning about being unable to continue being quite so spoiled and irresponsible, but masquerading as some sort of principled stand for freedom against a conspiracy from a totalitarian UN. With so many bad things going on in the world, from the effects of neonicotinoids on bees to the illegal wildlife trade, from melting polar ice caps to desertification, Koire’s pronouncements just distract people from addressing the genuine problems and, worse, attempt to dissuade them from trying to do something about them and, even worse, attempt to generate action against those people who are trying to do something about them.
That is why I find her views obnoxious. Apologies if that upsets anyone.
Geo-engineering: this is not a conspiracy but neither is it ignored by the mainstream media. Not even the BBC. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30197085) Cloud seeding, for example, has been used for years. There isn't any great secret. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long ... 60146.html There are aspects that can cause concern: things can go wrong, the substances used, etc. Perhaps the biggest concern, though, is that environmental irresponsibility will proceed unchecked because climate engineering is believed capable of fixing global warming. Even if climate manipulation can be implemented successfully, there would not necessarily be equal ability to use it: inequality in the distribution of goods is matched by inequality in the distribution of ‘bads’. There could be a grim future in which even greater power - power over the climate - is concentrated in the hands of the few. (I expect that there are a few conspiracy theories surrounding geo-engineering but I haven’t got time for those.)
On the other hand, I find Rosa Koire’s views (which seem to have little to do with geo-engineering) obnoxious. To explain why, I need to explain the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’. (The idea dates back to the 1880s but was popularised by Garrett Hardin in a seminal article in 1968: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 3.full.pdf.) Imagine a village cow pasture that is open to all villagers who herd cattle. Each individual cow herder can profit more and more by adding extra cattle to the pasture. After all, there is no fee for using the pasture. It’s so obviously a way to make extra profit that each and every cow herder adds more cattle to the pasture, and more cattle, and more cattle . . . Until the pasture is overgrazed and ruined; and then they all lose. The problem is that the profits are gained individually but the costs are spread collectively. Or put another way, when individuals do not experience the full costs of using a resource, they will tend to overuse it. And this dynamic applies to common resources such as air quality, common fishing waters, the atmosphere above us, etc. These are all ‘commons’ and the ‘collective’ that will incur the costs is you, me, our children, people we’ve never met, future generations . . . Since the profits are individual but the costs collective, it needs collective regulation to prevent overuse.
Rosa Koire objects to such regulation and that’s one reason why I find her views obnoxious. For the last few decades, Western governments have tended to follow neo-liberal agendas, facilitating the pursuit of individual profit while driving down protection for the collective. As we’ve just seen, individuals pursuing their own profit will not generate sustainability. So, more emphasis needs to be placed on the good of the overall collective or community: that’s the communitarianism she objects to. Of course, it’s possible to go to the opposite extreme; there needs to be a balance between the good of the community and individual liberty and gain. That is not communism: it’s freedom tempered with social responsibility so that others can enjoy what we are free to enjoy. At a global level, that means effective, international regulations, not the global dictatorship in Koire’s scaremongering caricature.
She suggests that public-private partnerships are ‘fascism’: that’s pure hyperbole and undermines both the identification of genuine fascism and the critique of its horrors. Public-private partnerships might be vulnerable to corruption but they’re not fascism. If anything, they’re part of the neo-liberal agenda, in this case facilitating private profit from state projects. Again, Koire’s views strike me as obnoxious, dishonest scaremongering.
She also criticises the UN’s emphasis on ‘equity’ but equity (as in fairness) is vital: if impoverished people are faced with a choice of watching their children starve or, say, getting a job chopping down rainforests, the latter will appear the lesser of two evils. All too often, poverty creates an incentive structure where the environmentally damaging option appears the only viable option. Remove poverty and the incentive structure changes. Even in the affluent west, inequality has not been redressed; instead, the tension caused by inequality has been softened by promoting economic growth. Of course, the poor still have a miniscule percentage of the pie, but the pie is bigger so it doesn’t seem so bad. But that is simply problem-displacement: the problem of inequality is ‘solved’ by creating a new problem, in this case pursuing indefinite growth with finite resources. So, equity is not the evil attempt to make Americans as poor as those in the developing countries, as Koire claims; it’s just a demand for equality of opportunity.
However, it’s true that typical Western lifestyles will have to change. It’s not even possible for everyone to enjoy those lifestyles right now, let alone for them to continue into the future. So, I don’t have much sympathy with Koire’s whinging about Americans not being able to use their cars as they wish (classic case of not experiencing the full costs) or not being able to use ‘their’ land as they wish (land which was stolen from the Native Americans anyway). It’s the spoiled and irresponsible moaning about being unable to continue being quite so spoiled and irresponsible, but masquerading as some sort of principled stand for freedom against a conspiracy from a totalitarian UN. With so many bad things going on in the world, from the effects of neonicotinoids on bees to the illegal wildlife trade, from melting polar ice caps to desertification, Koire’s pronouncements just distract people from addressing the genuine problems and, worse, attempt to dissuade them from trying to do something about them and, even worse, attempt to generate action against those people who are trying to do something about them.
That is why I find her views obnoxious. Apologies if that upsets anyone.
- Feedback
- View
Similar threads
