Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Global Warming And Climate Change


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
I think what they often do is try to upgrade the human input into the climate system, by using "global warming" to mean anthropogenic inputs, and then using "climate change", carrying the anthropogenic implications over to the term and making humans think: we are responsible for changing the climate.

Although in terms of what the terms mean I personally tend to think along Nick H's lines.

Agreed when GW is used by media or politicians or people in general it refers to man made warming.

What climate change says to me is the recognition of the dynamics [not fully understood of course] of the Earths climate. It covers projections of and reports of severe weather recorded around the globe whether it be record heat, floods, snow storms, record cold, droughts. I believe the intention is that it is human induced...but as I said it covers plenty of angles :cold:

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
One group of people I know of at the moment who are addressing this are at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Their proposals are based around a simple idea; energy must be used more efficiently. This requires that we get a better 'bang for our buck' from every bit of energy generated. To do this, there need to be radical changes in architecture, car, aircraft and ship design, even town & city design. This seems to me like a sensible attitude.

I haven't fully considered that angle before, but it certainly makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
I haven't fully considered that angle before, but it certainly makes sense.

Let me know when you have built a Carnot fridge or engine folks!

Sounds like we have supporters of Nuclear energy here.

Agreed that CC suggests natural and GW suggests Anthropogenic forcing. Makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Let me know when you have built a Carnot fridge or engine folks!

Sounds like we have supporters of Nuclear energy here.

Agreed that CC suggests natural and GW suggests Anthropogenic forcing. Makes sense.

Not me! Nuclear power suffers from the same problems as other sources. You're not thinking radically enough. We need to completely change the way we do certain things, such as heat and cool buildings and water, travel, cook and eat. Nothing unusual in that message. What's a carnot fridge?

:) P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
Not me! Nuclear power suffers from the same problems as other sources. You're not thinking radically enough. We need to completely change the way we do certain things, such as heat and cool buildings and water, travel, cook and eat. Nothing unusual in that message. What's a carnot fridge?

:) P

Radical thinking and yet not that radical.... The ability to provide sufficient (if not excessive) and relatively clean power (notwithstanding the damage to peatlands etc) already exists. The radical comes from standing in the face of globalisation and smacking its nose. Whilst nationalised industry was a sad old shire horse, the deeper into the unelected, unaccountable world of corporate greed we get I wonder if market forces might indeed be a worse thing than the everybody out days of the 70s and before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Radical thinking and yet not that radical.... The ability to provide sufficient (if not excessive) and relatively clean power (notwithstanding the damage to peatlands etc) already exists. The radical comes from standing in the face of globalisation and smacking its nose. Whilst nationalised industry was a sad old shire horse, the deeper into the unelected, unaccountable world of corporate greed we get I wonder if market forces might indeed be a worse thing than the everybody out days of the 70s and before.

Yes; this is getting to the possible essence. What drives GW is energy consumption; energy consumption is driven by business/industry; the demand for growth is fuelled by the need to satisfy shareholders. Is it Economics-driven Capitalism itself which is the real source of the problem? (vast oversimplification here).

And no, I don't have an alternative. Yet. Perhaps someone else has some ideas...

:) P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
Yes; this is getting to the possible essence. What drives GW is energy consumption; energy consumption is driven by business/industry; the demand for growth is fuelled by the need to satisfy shareholders. Is it Economics-driven Capitalism itself which is the real source of the problem? (vast oversimplification here).

And no, I don't have an alternative. Yet. Perhaps someone else has some ideas...

:) P

It is in my opinion, the very heart of the problem. It is now compounded of course by globalisation, to alter things, governments are forced to nationalise their industry base which would lead to probable armed conflict sponsored by those that sponsor other governments. Multinationals are now ingrained into the fabric of the world like parasites and it will take something very radical to shift them. Hence it will probably take a multinational with an ecological conscience to take them on. If anyone knows of such a beast, I do not know....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
It is in my opinion, the very heart of the problem. It is now compounded of course by globalisation, to alter things, governments are forced to nationalise their industry base which would lead to probable armed conflict sponsored by those that sponsor other governments. Multinationals are now ingrained into the fabric of the world like parasites and it will take something very radical to shift them. Hence it will probably take a multinational with an ecological conscience to take them on. If anyone knows of such a beast, I do not know....

Hopefully, this is a slightly pessimistic way of seeing things. When the Global Corps. see the economic benefit in long-term changes to strategy, they will implement them. An example might be BP's current research into biofuels (they'll need something to replace the oil that's running out), or the decision to abandon Alaska (high probability of unsustainability in the near future, possibly due to permafrost loss damaging the pipeline & cost of extraction). Here, the problem is that the economic benefit is to the corporations, not necessarily to us. On the other hand, without consumerism, the principal markets for corporate products slows down, so, collectively, we can have an impact.

A lot of the research into climate change impacts in the US. is now funded by the corporations, rather than the military, as used to be the case, which is why it can be difficult to find out what is going on. The question is whether the necessary adaptations are going to be market driven, or socially driven (i.e., with our well-being in mind). Sadly, I think I already know the answer to that one.

So, what needs to change? Is it possible to change it? What can we do with the situation as it now stands, where the MegaCorps seem to be driving the plans for the future?

:) P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
So, what needs to change? Is it possible to change it? What can we do with the situation as it now stands, where the MegaCorps seem to be driving the plans for the future?

:) P

Deliberately pessimisstic was my post to be fair, I tend to deal in extremes.

As for what we can do, I honestly think there are 3 courses that can be followed.

1) Do nothing and hope that AGW is a myth, Oil is the answer and globalisation the panacaea.

2) Actively support companies that promote a more eco-friendly solution and act as we would wish others to act and hope for a domino effect.

3) Vote en masse for a govenrment that proposes a radical solution to the issue whether that be nationalisation and eco-enforcement or punitive sanction or fines against carnbon-emmitters.

Personally, 1 is a no no ad 3 ahould follow by nature from 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

I actually feel pessimistic on this issue.

In order to protect the environment, sacrifices and/or risks of some kind will have to be made. At present, people in authority tend to focus only on the economy, which in turn is dependent on business, and tend not to care much about social factors, or at least see them as unimportant by comparison. Thus, it's unlikely that the governments will want to take risks with business, e.g. imposing significant limits on business emissions, doing anything that might compromise business. If we can't restrict business, the main thing we have left to restrict is the freedoms of the general public to do polluting activities.

Thus, I fear, unless capitalism to the extent we have it today is challenged, we are faced with a choice between two evils: either nothing is done about the problem, or action is taken in the form of Draconian measures to restrict the general public, and give them the burden of responsibility. The latter would probably be associated with a move back towards a more authoritarian state than we have at present.

Alternatives? I think it would be entirely feasible to explore possibilities for a middle ground between the extremes of economics-driven capitalism and communism. There may be a middle way between all-out nationalisation and privatisation; it may be feasible to make decisions with both social and economic factors being seen as important, where social factors take priority within the constraint that we must maintain a decent level of economy (as too much recession = lower quality of life).

However, I don't think that alternative is likely to happen, simply because it would require some serious rethinking and questioning of the whole fabric of Western society (questioning of traditional values rarely goes down very well), and in politics, everything is usually one extreme or the other, "middle ground" is a bit alien to most politicians. Added to that, I can't see the people in charge putting themselves out for the general public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Sorry I didn't catch your posts earlier.

I'm not sure how we got to this from the original purpose of the thread, but never mind.

The middle ground you are talking about, TWS, sounds like non-Marxist driven Socialism; the ideology of mutual support and mutual benefit. This horrific idea would send most current politicos into apoplexy.

While policy continues to be driven by markets and market forces, bucks will take precedence over bodies, on the grounds that 'greater wealth is to the benefit of all'. This is a falsehood. Greater wealth for some is at the cost of others. But greed and the desire to consume are the foundation of market economics. It's an ugly situation. How do we change it?

Snowmaiden: perhaps we can look at the examples of some of our European neighbours, like Sweden, for how policy can be both 'green' and socially acceptable. In the end, most of us do what we are supposed to, eventually.

In a vain attempt to get back onto the strand, I suppose this gives us a clue as to what to expect from government in terms of action on climate change. Nothing, until it's too late. That is, if there is anything that could be done.

As you say, TWS, a rather pessimistic outlook.

Any suggestions?

:blush: P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
Snowmaiden: perhaps we can look at the examples of some of our European neighbours, like Sweden, for how policy can be both 'green' and socially acceptable. In the end, most of us do what we are supposed to, eventually.

In a vain attempt to get back onto the strand, I suppose this gives us a clue as to what to expect from government in terms of action on climate change. Nothing, until it's too late. That is, if there is anything that could be done.

As you say, TWS, a rather pessimistic outlook.

Any suggestions?

:blush: P

On a country by country basis it may be a little easier, but then one has to factor in the multinationals again. I think the domino is the way forward, but how best to push the firs one over is the key...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Re this "middle ground", it probably needs a bit more explaining via examples:

Example 1: our public transport system has problems associated with its being privatised, but as we saw in the 1970s, complete nationalisation had a lot of problems associated with it. I thought of the idea of having some kind of medium where the public transport is privately run but with a greater degree of control/overseeing from the Government, to make it easier for the Govt to implement things that would help improve it.

Example 2: we sometimes have situations where there is a problem, where there are conflicting economic and social interests. The standard solution is to focus almost entirely on the economic side; I personally advocate seeing social factors as also being important, and aiming for a decision which addresses both the economic and social interests, or if this is impossible, the best all-round compromise between the two. E.g., with the North-South divide, the optimum market policy is expansion in the South East, but I advocate brownfield development in the North, to help reduce the N-S divide. Or development: market forces dictate greenbelt development, I advocate brownfield development as a compromise between ecnomic and social/environmental interests.

The suggestion of a balance between comminusm and capitalism was derived by extension of the above ideas. I am not the type to cling onto nonsensical ideas because it's what I believe, but if my ideas are ultimately flawed, I need to have some indication of why they are flawed, so that I can develop more rounded opinions. At the moment all I have to go on is that the ideas are horrific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

I'm sorry, TWS, I was being sarcastic, but it isn't clear from the post. I don't actually, personally think your ideas are horrific at all; we think very much alike. I'm not in the slightest inclined towards conservatism (not that there's anything wrong with that, either). I would be more of a socialist (ideologically, I probably am), but find it hard to trust any political party.

When I read example 1, it reminded me a little of the principles of Libertarianism, but I'm not up to date on current Libertarian views, apart from the fact that they are broadly anti-control/centralisation, and rely on frequent referenda to develop policy decisions.

Example 2 is, to me, a good illustration of why key policies must be driven by ideals and standards which are transparent; if policy demands that developers build outside the SE, they will make less profit, but they won't stop building.

I should have remembered not to discuss politics; it's a verbal minefield, but please don't misread me as criticising anybody's point of view; I always strive to avoid this, if possible.

Snowm: you clould well be right. So, which, if any, of the megacorps. can create a competitive advantage from socially responsible strategy? If we can work that out, we can get to work on them.

:blush: P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

In a way it was a relief to read the above- I was wondering if this was going to be the day when I found out my principles had to be completely re-thought! That said, the "sending most current politicos into apaplexy" may not be far from the reality of the situation...

Btw, I agree with the mention of Sweden and its ambitious environmental plans, I remember looking through their ideas on various websites a few months ago (I think someone mentioned biofuel cars to me, and showed me a website on Swedish policy, and I got interested and started researching). I recall being in broad agreement with most of their ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
In a way it was a relief to read the above- I was wondering if this was going to be the day when I found out my principles had to be completely re-thought! That said, the "sending most current politicos into apaplexy" may not be far from the reality of the situation...

Btw, I agree with the mention of Sweden and its ambitious environmental plans, I remember looking through their ideas on various websites a few months ago (I think someone mentioned biofuel cars to me, and showed me a website on Swedish policy, and I got interested and started researching). I recall being in broad agreement with most of their ideas.

Glad we've cleared that one up. :blush:

I'm no 'Britain basher', but when you look at how far behind the Swedes, Germans, Italians and others we are when it comes to environmental policy, it serves to illustrate two problems I think we do have in the UK; a neurotic fear of innovation, or anything resembling 'risk' in government, and a general state of indifference/apathy amongst the populus as a whole. This was pretty much the same conclusion that the IPCC report came to when assessing the risks of climate change; London and parts of the UK were at risk not because they would be underwater, as such, but because a 'high degree of inertia' seemed to prevent any ameliorative/adaptive action being taken.

Anyone here live in East Anglia? Best buy some flippers. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
Anyone here live in East Anglia? Best buy some flippers. :blush:

East Anglia is my home, but I live on relatively high ground (relative being the key word here!) off the flood plains behind the fabulous morainic ridge so will be protected from the vicissitudes of sea incursions unless the whole cap melts!

As to which megacorps is well placed to take market advantage of social responsibility... I would think it is more likely that one of them will emerge from the pack (I am thinking the BPs of the world and such) once social pressure and interest in renewables etc becomes ovewhelming and buy out the wind and solar market as far as able injecting cash into it and promoting it as if it were their gift back to the world. That is the point where everyone needs to get on board as a mass take up of socially responsible power from a megacorps will have a huge domino effect. Megacorps are lemmings in all but name and once one caves, the rest follow.

Another alternative would be a major bank or insurance company buying out and going for a tie in.

The least active start point (and it chokes me to say it much as I loathe them) is a supermarket chain going in for energy small scale on an environmental basis (Tesco are the most likely candidate I'd say) and generating some interest. That one is a bit of a 'starting a fire in a gale' scenario though. Still, every little helps or something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District. 290 mts a.s.l.
  • Weather Preferences: Anything extreme
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District. 290 mts a.s.l.
In a vain attempt to get back onto the strand, I suppose this gives us a clue as to what to expect from government in terms of action on climate change. Nothing, until it's too late. That is, if there is anything that could be done.

As you say, TWS, a rather pessimistic outlook.

Any suggestions?

:blush: P

I'm in full agreement on that point, Parmenides; it's a topic I've banged on about in differing threads on numerous occasions.

For as long as the changing climate continues to act as it is at present, ie occasional records broken at the warm end of the scale, a very wet autumn or winter every 5 years or so etc, it will always be perceived as being manageable. The reasoning will therefore be that as long as it's manageable there's no need to go overboard with Draconian measures to combat it.

No government will want to compromise its' economy by going out on a limb with a whole trenche of 'green measures' when others may hold back and therefore gain a financial advantage. With the greastest effects of GW always projected to be just outside the lifetime of anyone currently over 20 it will be the nature of governments to play a game of brinksmanship; just doing enough to pacify the 'green lobby' and to appear to be doing something but never jumping right into the pool just in case the worst scenario projections never materialise after all.

The general public, although generally aware of and to a lesser extent concerned about climate change or GW, are on the whole apathetic.

Many people feel that as long as they're recycling paper and bottles there's little else they can do and that the real meat of the issue should be up to the government, so long as the government doesn't take any action which reduces their standard of living or impinges too much on their lifestyle.

In my opinion it would take some climatic catastrophe such as the THC shutting down or dramatically slowing or a series of meterological events outside the experience of humanity over the last few thousand years to really focus minds, by this time it would already be far too late.

Yes, it is a pessimistic outlook.

T.M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m

I completely agree, TM, with your thoughts regarding government leadership, or lack of. Politics in democratic countries is a five-year game, played to disturb the lives of the people as little as possible. I think most of the population in the informed countries of the world acknowledge Climate Change as a phenomenon, but not one that seriously disadvantages them, at least at the moment, while the concept of Global Warming (anthropological or otherwise) is mostly seen as either another from of media hype or a confusing mish-mash of scientific blow-off. Worse still, in totalitarian countries there is no need what so ever for the government to listen to peoples’ concerns.

However, I’m not sure that anyone has to be overly pessimistic as yet. After all nobody knows for sure where in the cycle we are right now and there is no sign of immediate catastrophe. This gives us time to monitor and learn more over the next couple of decades, whilst further confirming climate trends at the same time. In the meantime, who knows, maybe environmental nurturing will become fashionable. Then the politicians will jump on the windmill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
I completely agree, TM, with your thoughts regarding government leadership, or lack of. Politics in democratic countries is a five-year game, played to disturb the lives of the people as little as possible. I think most of the population in the informed countries of the world acknowledge Climate Change as a phenomenon, but not one that seriously disadvantages them, at least at the moment, while the concept of Global Warming (anthropological or otherwise) is mostly seen as either another from of media hype or a confusing mish-mash of scientific blow-off. Worse still, in totalitarian countries there is no need what so ever for the government to listen to peoples’ concerns.

However, I’m not sure that anyone has to be overly pessimistic as yet. After all nobody knows for sure where in the cycle we are right now and there is no sign of immediate catastrophe. This gives us time to monitor and learn more over the next couple of decades, whilst further confirming climate trends at the same time. In the meantime, who knows, maybe environmental nurturing will become fashionable. Then the politicians will jump on the windmill.

I'm still doing research on the THC. Dramatic change in our lifetimes is not completely impossible, though still looking unlikely. I don't know whether I'd be pleased or worried. At least we could say 'I told you so...

Now I'm depressed; I'm going to lie down in a quiet room.

:blush: P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District. 290 mts a.s.l.
  • Weather Preferences: Anything extreme
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District. 290 mts a.s.l.
I'm still doing research on the THC. Dramatic change in our lifetimes is not completely impossible, though still looking unlikely. I don't know whether I'd be pleased or worried. At least we could say 'I told you so...

Now I'm depressed; I'm going to lie down in a quiet room.

:) P

Personally I'm in favour of something as dramatic as a THC shutdown ( for example ) occurring sooner rather than later on the basis of a 'this will hurt me more than it hurts you'

premise where 'me' is a section of humanity now and 'you' is the earth in general and humanity in the future.

Certainly it would be a hard pill to swallow and certainly there would have to be a radical re-think as to which direction environmental policies would take but it would not be an overwhelming catastrophe and, hopefully, we would be steered away from the current orgy of consumerism and unsustainable capitalist 'growth' onto a more environmentally and ethically sound footing.

I will make the analogy of a young driver, recently having passed his/her test who drives increasingly recklessly. It is better that they have one or two relativly minor accidents early on, as a result of their recklessness, in order that cause and effect are firmly established in their minds rather than continue on a reckless path for a considerable time, eventually coming to believe they are invincible, only to eventually die in a major accident.

T.M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

There is much sense in the above; the analogy is also a good one.

I'd rather it didn't have to come to that, but as has been suggested above, it's diffcult to think of alternatives. More accurately, it's difficult to think of alternatives that would be embraced by self-seeking politicians and businesses.

When I read example 1, it reminded me a little of the principles of Libertarianism, but I'm not up to date on current Libertarian views, apart from the fact that they are broadly anti-control/centralisation, and rely on frequent referenda to develop policy decisions.

Surprisingly, I looked around the net, and at least according to Wikipedia the idea of a significantly regulated free market economy has had some support from political parties, of the political alignments described on Wiki my ideas are probably closest to the "social libertarian" position that was until recently favoured by the Liberal Democrats. Apparently New Labour had similar economic policies before it came into power (since which it has moved towards the absolute free-market economic right wing)

I personally think that politicians are more likely to favour right wing, both on authoritarian scale (so they can get more power) and economic scale (because absolute free markets generally ensure the best level of economic growth even though it means sacrifices on an environmental and social level). Which goes back to the issue that governments will not want to compromise their economies with 'green' measures.

Edited by Thundery wintry showers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

It is always interesting to engage in 'thinking out loud' strands. I know we have gone 'political' rather than 'weather', but it seems clear enough that there is a strong connection between the two, at least in our concerns over the potential impacts of climate change and a consideration of intervention (note, there is a strange paradox at work here, in our 'hope' for some kind of leadership and our mutual distrust of authority, if that's not too strong a statement).

You might be interested to look at the Wikipedia entry under 'Anarchism'. Some of the comments on the strand suggest a tendency towards 'post-left' or 'small a' anarchist ideology. I must admit an interest here, as I have been influenced by the ideas of Chomsky, Alan Moore and, more particularly, Deleuze & Guattari, who might be classified in this way.

Final thought for the mo.; if there were a change in climate over 5-10 years, which resulted in more extreme and generally more damaging weather for northern Europe, would we then feel the need for a 'strong' government to support and sustain the victims? I'm thinking here of China, most recently, where mass evacuations, in excess of a million people at a time, has undoubtedly saved many lives in the recent typhoons and floods.

:) P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m

P3, TWS, TM,

I don’t think you’ll have to wait (and wait, and wait,) for a North Atlantic shut down to achieve the effect you desire.

As the USA is currently one of the biggest blockers in relation to climate sensitive planning, all you would need would be four or five years of Gulf Coast flattening or flooding, or two or three years of Washington DC being covered in ten feet of snow, and I bet you would see a step-change in world environmental activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
You might be interested to look at the Wikipedia entry under 'Anarchism'. Some of the comments on the strand suggest a tendency towards 'post-left' or 'small a' anarchist ideology. I must admit an interest here, as I have been influenced by the ideas of Chomsky, Alan Moore and, more particularly, Deleuze & Guattari, who might be classified in this way.

Final thought for the mo.; if there were a change in climate over 5-10 years, which resulted in more extreme and generally more damaging weather for northern Europe, would we then feel the need for a 'strong' government to support and sustain the victims? I'm thinking here of China, most recently, where mass evacuations, in excess of a million people at a time, has undoubtedly saved many lives in the recent typhoons and floods.

I had a look on the Wikipedia articles on Deleuze and Guattari, and I too found it rather interesting, particularly the sections on difference. At some times in school I was in what could be considered the peer pressure equivalent of a totalitarian society; if you differed from the social norms you were mercilessly punished by ostracisation.

I think at the end of the day, the kind of society I personally envision is one where people are able to be individuals within the constraint that they don't engage in activities that have a significant chance of harming others (one could arguably add harming themselves as well). I don't actually have much interest in political economics; I would simply be looking for an economic system that would be best for achieving the above aim. The recent interest in economics comes from the fact that I have been frequently coming across issues that suggest that in a system that is capitalist to the current extent, the desire for market profits can get in the way of working towards such a society, as well as the goal of creating a balance between human needs and the environment.

In the case of severe weather I'm guessing that British citizens would want a strong government to help its citizens, but given the current level of wastage and disorganisation I am far from convinced that it would do a very good job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...