‘Fear not those who argue but those who dodge’
Sustainability is the only issue. It’s up to governments and it’s up to the people to sort it out.
When the House of Commons was debating whether or not to sign up to the 10:10 agreement – i.e. to decrease their organisational carbon footprint by 10% - the debate descended into a party political point scoring exercise which led nowhere and certainly did not lead to a commitment to decrease consumption by 10%. This is arrogance we do not have time for.
Conventional political and economic policies are destroying the very foundations of the well-being of humans and other animals. Our culture is in the grip of a value system which is fundamentally flawed. Humanity has been lording it over the natural environment, blind to the fact that humanity is just another dependent upon it. Soon humanity will be at the mercy of it.
Government policies should see to it that all human activities are indefinitely sustainable and protect the interests of the powerless against the powerful.
The current alarming situation regarding biofuels as a replacement for fossil fuels is merely a symptom of the rot. The clearing of virgin forest for monoculture palm oil production is lunacy. Rain forest is being cleared, ancient wetlands drained and indigenous peoples are being dispossessed of their lands.
Biofuels contribute substantially more to greenhouse gas emissions than is saved by burning slightly less fossil fuels, yet the European demand for biofuels (the EU target is 10% by 2020), coupled with sizable financial incentives to developers, is pushing up commodity prices and encouraging multi-billion dollar investment in infrastructure and refineries linked to large scale deforestation. The impact of this behaviour could be irreversible.
A paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in February shows that the climate change we cause today “is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop”. Around 40% of the carbon dioxide produced by humans this century will remain in the atmosphere until at least the year 3000. Moreover, thanks to the peculiar ways in which the oceans absorb heat from the atmosphere, global average temperatures are likely to “remain approximately constant … until the end of the millennium despite zero further emissions”.
The Copenhagen summit is squaring up to be yet another talking shop. Government has failed us.
We do not have to add to the problem. Sign up at http://www.1010uk.org/ and reduce your own carbon emissions. Where were you when we reached the tipping point? Will you tell your children that you did everything in your power to stop climate change?
November 22, 2009
November 18, 2009
‘Forty acres and a mule’
The promise of forty acres and a mule was made to freed slaves after the American Civil War. It was a grand promise, but the supply of land was not infinite, and the promise was broken.
The land - the thing which by rights should not be owned, the thing which is integral to our existence. The land is our planet, our food, our home, and the greatest natural resource of all. In itself it is not wealth. It is a necessity.
The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to own property individually as well as in association with others." There is no ambiguity here. It says ‘everyone’. Yet not everyone has the means to exercise that right.
There's no free land. Does that mean the earth has run out of room? It would, if we could show that all the available land was being efficiently used, but that is certainly not the case. The most valuable land in this mad world offers no mineral riches and will yield no crops: the world's most valuable land (in monetary terms) is urban land. In the wealthiest cities, large areas of valuable land lie idle, as their owners wait for higher prices in the future. Meanwhile, millions go hungry. Huge farms grow feed for animals, or crops for export and fuel whilst their neighbours starve. Agribusiness receives payment to hold fields out of use to "stabilize" food prices. Investors discover that producing wealth is far less profitable than simply holding onto valuable real estate and, later, pocketing its increased value.
The supply of land is fixed. There will never be any more of it. And land is needed for all production. As an economy becomes more productive, as technology and trade allow greater yield for the same effort - the demand for land increases, yet the supply stays the same. We cannot create more land. This means that the share of wealth taken by landowners automatically gets bigger whenever the total economy grows. There is, therefore, a built-in incentive in our system to hold land for speculative purposes.
It is the community which gives value to land - the people who live nearby and who travel past it; the public infrastructure that is built to feed it and the huge demand for resources that lie beneath it. As the community grows, so does the value of the land.
Proximity to transportation is a prime determinant of land value. It's a gift to landowners. All public services and infrastructure and the resultant increased value to land is nothing short of a gift from taxpayers to landowners – a rip off, one might say.
Henry George looked at this problem and saw a solution. As society grows more complex, it develops a greater need for public goods and services and the bill is always shouldered by the hapless taxpayer. If the community has created this added value to the land, it makes sense that the value should somehow be returned back to the community.
He looked at the tortured logic of "broad-based taxation" (such as income tax, sales tax and vat, excise taxes, lotteries, import duties, death duties etc) which impacts more heavily on the poorer members of society than those who are wealthy, and found that there is only one fair and efficient source of public revenue: all taxes must be done away with, and the value of land must be taken for public revenue. Yes, tax the value of land.
A reform such as this would improve efficiencies – it would simplify the tax system, remove the burden of taxation from production and individuals and minimise the waste of unused land.
In this way, full use of existing properties would be encouraged, the practice of people speculating on the price of sites whilst keeping the properties empty or derelict thoroughly discouraged.
Such a reform would be fair – the infrastructure which increases the value of land would be paid for by the owners of the land itself and not through penalisation and taxation of the ordinary woman and man. It would not be taking anything away from landowners, but simply asking them to pay their share towards the infrastructure which is directly making them more wealthy. Profits would rightly come from using the land effectively.
The earth is not owned by anyone. It is precious and must be held in trust for all people, and all life, as a means for survival. Lindy Davis at http://www.landreform.org/
November 05, 2009
The White Poppy Campaign
The poppy commemorates those who have died in war. The tradition was started by American teacher Moina Bell Michael, who sold silk poppies to friends to raise money for the ex-service community. In 1920 the poppy was proclaimed the national emblem of remembrance in the US, and in the UK, the first poppy day was in 1921.
Channel 4 newsreader Jon Snow famously refuses to wear a poppy on air, reportedly saying he does not want to bow to "poppy fascism''.
Purple poppies are worn in remembrance of the animals which died in war. In World War One alone, around 8 million horses, mules and donkeys died. Today, dolphins and sea lions are trained and employed by the US Government for minesweeping ‘duties’. https://secure.wsa.u-net.com/www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign/vivi/war1.htm
White poppies date from 1933, when the Women's Co-operative Guild wanted a lasting symbol for peace and an end to all wars. But the Royal British Legion refused to be associated with their manufacture, and so the Co-operative Wholesale Society took on production. The intention was not to offend the memory of those who died in the Great War, but feelings ran so high that some women lost their jobs in the 1930s for wearing white poppies. The intention today is still supportive of our armed forces, but not of the wrong-minded politics which lead them to war.
White poppies today are a symbol of those who do not subscribe to the hypocrisy of praying for peace while preparing for war. They are worn in Peace and Remembrance and the wearers show an intention to move society beyond the scars of history to a positive future free from war.
They were young and went heavy to battle
They fell, unsure who was the foe
With compassion and love
We transcend the past
To the peace they desired
Our last heroes of war
Move beyond the scars of history with the White Poppy Campaign this weekend, and wear your poppy for Peace and Remembrance lest we forget the way forward.
Wear your white poppy with compassion and love.
White poppies can be purchased at http://www.ppu.org.uk/poppy/
What you didn’t now about war http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMnVG0LKZPU&feature=related
October 31, 2009
'Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of escaping from them.
Things have to change, and one of them is capitalism.
The word ‘capitalism’ invokes an ideology which places a higher value on things (capital) than human beings (labour). A tiny number of individuals own the vast bulk of capital assets. The majority own little or nothing except their labour, and the price of that is out of their control. It is a type of slavery.
The earliest form of capitalism was called "mercantilism", and originated the Middle East. Mercantilism is roughly defined as the distribution of goods in order to realize a profit. Arabic cultures living on the great trading routes had a long history of mercantilism. The medieval Europeans essentially learned mercantilism from their Islamic neighbours and the great European voyages of discovery were entirely driven by mercantile ambitions. As time went on, mercantilism gradually evolved into economic practices which have come to be known as capitalism.
We tend to define capitalism as an economic and social system in which the means of production – tools, factories, land and infrastructure –are privately controlled. The use of human labour combined with this means of production produces goods and services which are then sold. The resultant profits are distributed to the owners or invested back into technologies and industries.
Early advocates of the use of markets did not expect the pure market mechanism to be a freestanding performer of excellence, nor did they take the profit motive to be all that was needed. The failure of free markets lies in the things that the market leaves undone. The present economic crisis has been generated by an irrational overestimation of the wisdom of market forces.
However you define it, there are truly serious defects in the existing economic arrangements and a desperate need to reform them. Capitalism is often confused with "free markets" or "democracy," but whatever we choose to call it, the thing we have is little short of an unstable, conflict-prone and class-divided society. The poor are getting poorer, the rich richer.
Marx originally aligned himself with the burgeoning capitalists, but parted from them because he thought they had become too weak.
Martin Luther King wrote: True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it understands that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
Louis Kelso used the term "universal capitalism" to describe a free market system where capital would be shared by the overwhelming majority of the population.
We need a revolution to fundamentally change the nature of capitalism. Our system is weighed down by entrenched privilege. If we want more of the same all we have to do is nothing. If we want change we have to wake up and get to work.
The successful exceptions give clues as to how we can move forward towards greater economic justice - the co-operative societies and the Employee Share Ownership Schemes (ESOPS) where broad-based asset ownership by the workforce provide profits for all.
Capitalism – or whatever term you would like to use - has put a lot of food in a lot of mouths, but the benefits have not been dealt out equally. This can only be remedied by a sea change in policies. Workforce ownership in the means of production provides a neat stepping stone to a more just economic future. Unearned benefits from land-use can be shared amongst all the community.
But the benefits go beyond economics. Co-operatives, partnerships and ESOPS will also bring greater corporate responsibility because the decision making process would no longer rest in the hands of the elite few who consider themselves above the law. The working woman and man would collectively make more humane decisions. They would identify with the other ordinary working people whom any decision might affect. Would employee-owned oil producers knowingly dump toxic waste on their fellows in another country? Would partnership- owned factories choose dirty power over clean power?
If you don’t stand up, you might as well lay down.
Black communities across the USA have been savaged by the economic crisis. Black unemployment is twice that of whites - that means 40%. Millions of families are going backwards to homelessness and insecurity. Downward mobility is now a mass phenomenon.
"Banksters" are reporting super profits and giving out obscene bonuses. Their lobbyists are blocking new regulations and presiding over the largest transfer of wealth in history from the working poor to the super rich. Today, there are bank branches in almost every area - except the poorest ones where pay-day lenders reign with usury on their mind and in their interest rates.
When it comes to credit, the poor pay more - and the banks know it and profit from it. Fraud is their middle name and they need to be challenged in the courts and in the streets.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/10/2009102092330776600.html
The word ‘capitalism’ invokes an ideology which places a higher value on things (capital) than human beings (labour). A tiny number of individuals own the vast bulk of capital assets. The majority own little or nothing except their labour, and the price of that is out of their control. It is a type of slavery.
The earliest form of capitalism was called "mercantilism", and originated the Middle East. Mercantilism is roughly defined as the distribution of goods in order to realize a profit. Arabic cultures living on the great trading routes had a long history of mercantilism. The medieval Europeans essentially learned mercantilism from their Islamic neighbours and the great European voyages of discovery were entirely driven by mercantile ambitions. As time went on, mercantilism gradually evolved into economic practices which have come to be known as capitalism.
We tend to define capitalism as an economic and social system in which the means of production – tools, factories, land and infrastructure –are privately controlled. The use of human labour combined with this means of production produces goods and services which are then sold. The resultant profits are distributed to the owners or invested back into technologies and industries.
Early advocates of the use of markets did not expect the pure market mechanism to be a freestanding performer of excellence, nor did they take the profit motive to be all that was needed. The failure of free markets lies in the things that the market leaves undone. The present economic crisis has been generated by an irrational overestimation of the wisdom of market forces.
However you define it, there are truly serious defects in the existing economic arrangements and a desperate need to reform them. Capitalism is often confused with "free markets" or "democracy," but whatever we choose to call it, the thing we have is little short of an unstable, conflict-prone and class-divided society. The poor are getting poorer, the rich richer.
Marx originally aligned himself with the burgeoning capitalists, but parted from them because he thought they had become too weak.
Martin Luther King wrote: True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it understands that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
Louis Kelso used the term "universal capitalism" to describe a free market system where capital would be shared by the overwhelming majority of the population.
We need a revolution to fundamentally change the nature of capitalism. Our system is weighed down by entrenched privilege. If we want more of the same all we have to do is nothing. If we want change we have to wake up and get to work.
The successful exceptions give clues as to how we can move forward towards greater economic justice - the co-operative societies and the Employee Share Ownership Schemes (ESOPS) where broad-based asset ownership by the workforce provide profits for all.
Capitalism – or whatever term you would like to use - has put a lot of food in a lot of mouths, but the benefits have not been dealt out equally. This can only be remedied by a sea change in policies. Workforce ownership in the means of production provides a neat stepping stone to a more just economic future. Unearned benefits from land-use can be shared amongst all the community.
But the benefits go beyond economics. Co-operatives, partnerships and ESOPS will also bring greater corporate responsibility because the decision making process would no longer rest in the hands of the elite few who consider themselves above the law. The working woman and man would collectively make more humane decisions. They would identify with the other ordinary working people whom any decision might affect. Would employee-owned oil producers knowingly dump toxic waste on their fellows in another country? Would partnership- owned factories choose dirty power over clean power?
If you don’t stand up, you might as well lay down.
Black communities across the USA have been savaged by the economic crisis. Black unemployment is twice that of whites - that means 40%. Millions of families are going backwards to homelessness and insecurity. Downward mobility is now a mass phenomenon.
"Banksters" are reporting super profits and giving out obscene bonuses. Their lobbyists are blocking new regulations and presiding over the largest transfer of wealth in history from the working poor to the super rich. Today, there are bank branches in almost every area - except the poorest ones where pay-day lenders reign with usury on their mind and in their interest rates.
When it comes to credit, the poor pay more - and the banks know it and profit from it. Fraud is their middle name and they need to be challenged in the courts and in the streets.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/10/2009102092330776600.html
October 25, 2009
Wanted - More Thinking Citizens
"We don't fear the unknown. We fear how the unknown might cause us to re-evaluate the known."
Our political institutions cannot progress if we do not produce a greater number of thinking citizens. Everyone can and must decide for themselves whether the education they received, or are getting is fit for purpose. If you are not satisfied, it is up to you to do something about it. COEXIST is opening the doors to thought a little bit wider. We have developed constructive dialogue with many of our members and together we are broadening our horizons and discussing the steps which need to be taken to create a more just world.
At COEXIST we believe that the mainstays to a truly Peaceful society will be economic justice, social justice and environmental justice. Without these aspects in place, living in a world of limited violence will not be sustainable. A society seeking peace, whilst striving to have a positive influence on events abroad, must primarily attend to domestic issues. The individual at the heart of the equation has the responsibility of checking the excesses of their own institutions and encouraging positive attitudes.
We are in this world together – all of us. We have the responsibility of building the future we would like to see. It starts in our own heads.
Refreshing
With so many new people joining COEXIST, we thought it was time for a quick refresher of our goals:
Economic Justice
The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free every individual from the tyranny of greed and allow everyone the opportunity to take part in the world economy without fear of exploitation. It means the abolition of unfair economic institutions, controlling monopolies and unfair trade. It means creating economic strategies which allow individuals freedom to pursue activities beyond the pressing needs of income generation and to engage in the unlimited work of life-building, childrearing and self advancement. It means protecting the rights of the individual to organize and to receive a living wage for their work.
Social Justice
Bound inextricably to economic justice is social justice. This is about developing fair systems of co-operation which span the generations and enable a bedrock of equality and fairness in all that we do. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development. It means operating within the values of compassion and respect. Society can only be just if individuals and institutions are just.
Environmental Justice
Environmental justice is a matter of life and death. Affluent nations plunder the resources of countries with little bargaining power. Often the result is brutal poverty, poisoned land and polluted waterways. Environmental justice requires that every individual has the same degree of protection from health hazards, and equal access to the decision -making processes affecting them. It means allowing only sustainable developments, respecting the resources we have and treating the natural world with the same compassion we would afford to each other
Veterans for Peace
Mike Ludwig spoke publicly yesterday advocating for exhausted US active duty forces and for the returning vets of Iraq/Afghanistan. There are 18 suicides a day among the veterans; 1,000 additional vets a month attempt suicide; 1 in 3 women soldiers are raped - by their fellow male g.i.'s - and 33% of returning vets need treatment for PTSD and TBI. Think hard President Obama. These are people, not robots. http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
October 16, 2009
Better to Sweat in Peace than Bleed in War
Hopeless barbaric slaughter
The violent nature and controversial social effects of war raise troubling moral questions for a thoughtful person. Is war always wrong? Might there be situations when it can be a justified? Is war an outcome of unchangeable human nature or of changeable social practice?
War is a phenomenon which occurs between political communities and it seems that all warfare is precisely, and ultimately, about governance. Carl von Clausewitz the (so-called) philosopher of war famously suggested that war is “the continuation of policy by other means”. Governance by bludgeon might be a better way of putting it.
We all had high hopes going into the new millennium in 2000. In many communities the midnight bells were followed by John Lennon’s call to peace -“Imagine”. Within a year Afghanistan was invaded. Within 2 years the US and UK went with the utmost belligerency into a war on Iraq. The Lancet estimated that 601,000 people were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. The rule of non-combatant immunity has been replaced by the heartless term ‘collateral damage’.
Can there be such a thing as a just war when aggression is defined as the use of armed force in violation of someone else's basic rights? Aggression attacks the very spine of human civilization. Is it not absurd to punish someone for an offense they have yet to commit? International law forbids pre-emptive strikes unless they are clearly authorized in advance by the UN Security Council.
The just causes most frequently mentioned include self-defence from external attack and the protection of innocents from brutal regimes. Terrorism is the use of random violence against civilians with the specific intent of spreading fear throughout a population and advancing a political objective. Terrorism is not overcome by killing the same innocents which the notion of a just war is professed to protect.
The nature of humans is formed by their experiences and education. This is changeable. Unless practical and effective alternatives to violence are offered, policy-makers without imagination will always tend to favour the default method (violence), borne from historical teaching rather than future planning.
Military approaches to conflict have limited use and often make the underlying problem worse. They are also very expensive. For every dollar spent globally on conflict prevention and conflict resolution by non-military means, nearly 2,000 times as much is spent on defence and the military. The average direct cost of one violent conflict is $64 billion. With just a fraction of that sum, violence could be nipped in the bud, thousands of lives saved and many millions in post-conflict reconstruction costs avoided.
Since the early 1990s more wars have ended by negotiated settlement than by military victory, and yet the chances of violent conflicts restarting are still almost 50%. Ignition or re-ignition of violent conflict is much more likely where local peace builders are insufficiently mobilised or resourced to engage in the peace process. Non violent resolution to conflict is entirely possible. The only thing lacking is funding.
One organisation which encourages dialogue on the practical means to prevent, transform and resolve violent conflict is the APPGCI. Read more here - http://www.conflictissues.org.uk
Be the Change
At 16 years old, Babar Ali must be the youngest headmaster in the world. He runs classes for hundred’s of children too poor to attend school from his own backyard. Like many young people today he sees a pressing need, realises that no government, no other individual, is going to fulfil it, and so gets on with the job himself. Money is no longer an issue. Babar Ali does it for nothing; the climate campers do it for nothing, the peace activists, the change campaigners – they all do it for nothing because at last they see what needs to be done. They get on and do it because enough time has been wasted and money is no longer the issue. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8299780.stm
CODEPINK in Afghanistan
Afghan women told the visiting CODEPINK delegation that more troops would mean more civilian deaths and more Taliban. Afghan women want peace talks and economic development, not endless war. In Afghanistan most men join the Taliban out of economic desperation. In the UK and the US similar forces are at work with record numbers joining the armed forces. Are these boys really fighting material, or are they just cannon fodder propping up outdated ideology on both sides? Providing jobs will do more for world security than spending billions on warfare.
It's time to change our military focus to a focus on improving the health, education and welfare of the Afghan people. The protection of Afghan women is often used to justify the military presence, but an astounding array of Afghan women said that sending more U.S. troops is not the answer. President Obama should listen to these women and focus on economic needs in Afghanistan, not war. http://www.codepink4peace.org
Imagine there's no pipeline - planned for Afghanistan.
Imagine women are included - in the Brotherhood of man.
Imagine Turks & Tajiks - & Pashtuns belonged to one clan.
You may wonder what the fighting's for,
Who's monster is "the Taliban"?
Born of a committee of the CIA & ISI
Chaired by Islamism not Islam.
Kindly donated by Patrick Parks
The violent nature and controversial social effects of war raise troubling moral questions for a thoughtful person. Is war always wrong? Might there be situations when it can be a justified? Is war an outcome of unchangeable human nature or of changeable social practice?
War is a phenomenon which occurs between political communities and it seems that all warfare is precisely, and ultimately, about governance. Carl von Clausewitz the (so-called) philosopher of war famously suggested that war is “the continuation of policy by other means”. Governance by bludgeon might be a better way of putting it.
We all had high hopes going into the new millennium in 2000. In many communities the midnight bells were followed by John Lennon’s call to peace -“Imagine”. Within a year Afghanistan was invaded. Within 2 years the US and UK went with the utmost belligerency into a war on Iraq. The Lancet estimated that 601,000 people were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. The rule of non-combatant immunity has been replaced by the heartless term ‘collateral damage’.
Can there be such a thing as a just war when aggression is defined as the use of armed force in violation of someone else's basic rights? Aggression attacks the very spine of human civilization. Is it not absurd to punish someone for an offense they have yet to commit? International law forbids pre-emptive strikes unless they are clearly authorized in advance by the UN Security Council.
The just causes most frequently mentioned include self-defence from external attack and the protection of innocents from brutal regimes. Terrorism is the use of random violence against civilians with the specific intent of spreading fear throughout a population and advancing a political objective. Terrorism is not overcome by killing the same innocents which the notion of a just war is professed to protect.
The nature of humans is formed by their experiences and education. This is changeable. Unless practical and effective alternatives to violence are offered, policy-makers without imagination will always tend to favour the default method (violence), borne from historical teaching rather than future planning.
Military approaches to conflict have limited use and often make the underlying problem worse. They are also very expensive. For every dollar spent globally on conflict prevention and conflict resolution by non-military means, nearly 2,000 times as much is spent on defence and the military. The average direct cost of one violent conflict is $64 billion. With just a fraction of that sum, violence could be nipped in the bud, thousands of lives saved and many millions in post-conflict reconstruction costs avoided.
Since the early 1990s more wars have ended by negotiated settlement than by military victory, and yet the chances of violent conflicts restarting are still almost 50%. Ignition or re-ignition of violent conflict is much more likely where local peace builders are insufficiently mobilised or resourced to engage in the peace process. Non violent resolution to conflict is entirely possible. The only thing lacking is funding.
One organisation which encourages dialogue on the practical means to prevent, transform and resolve violent conflict is the APPGCI. Read more here - http://www.conflictissues.org.uk
Be the Change
At 16 years old, Babar Ali must be the youngest headmaster in the world. He runs classes for hundred’s of children too poor to attend school from his own backyard. Like many young people today he sees a pressing need, realises that no government, no other individual, is going to fulfil it, and so gets on with the job himself. Money is no longer an issue. Babar Ali does it for nothing; the climate campers do it for nothing, the peace activists, the change campaigners – they all do it for nothing because at last they see what needs to be done. They get on and do it because enough time has been wasted and money is no longer the issue. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8299780.stm
CODEPINK in Afghanistan
Afghan women told the visiting CODEPINK delegation that more troops would mean more civilian deaths and more Taliban. Afghan women want peace talks and economic development, not endless war. In Afghanistan most men join the Taliban out of economic desperation. In the UK and the US similar forces are at work with record numbers joining the armed forces. Are these boys really fighting material, or are they just cannon fodder propping up outdated ideology on both sides? Providing jobs will do more for world security than spending billions on warfare.
It's time to change our military focus to a focus on improving the health, education and welfare of the Afghan people. The protection of Afghan women is often used to justify the military presence, but an astounding array of Afghan women said that sending more U.S. troops is not the answer. President Obama should listen to these women and focus on economic needs in Afghanistan, not war. http://www.codepink4peace.org
Imagine there's no pipeline - planned for Afghanistan.
Imagine women are included - in the Brotherhood of man.
Imagine Turks & Tajiks - & Pashtuns belonged to one clan.
You may wonder what the fighting's for,
Who's monster is "the Taliban"?
Born of a committee of the CIA & ISI
Chaired by Islamism not Islam.
Kindly donated by Patrick Parks
October 15, 2009
Perfect Means to Imperfect Ends
In two years' time, the annual growth of the web will be equivalent to all the documents ever written in human history. In the foreseeable future, that same amount of information is likely to be added in a matter of days.
The future is here. The pace of the technological development that we imagine lies in the future is with us right now and changes our lives from year to year, sometimes from month to month. We live the future every day. The problems of the future impinge on the present as only history once did and has a profound impact on the way people think of their own time and their own lives.
The gap between our technical ingenuity and our political and moral capacities to deal with the issues of today is large. One key problem is that we are working with a model of democracy founded before industrialisation when the population of the world was less than 1 billion in total.
We must update our institutions so that there is formal, publicised, long-term advice, which will educate politicians and the public. Education is vital, not just about the menace of an overheated, overpopulated world, but about greed and the selfishness that is integral to current ideas of success.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/27/henry-porter-saving-planet
The future is here. The pace of the technological development that we imagine lies in the future is with us right now and changes our lives from year to year, sometimes from month to month. We live the future every day. The problems of the future impinge on the present as only history once did and has a profound impact on the way people think of their own time and their own lives.
The gap between our technical ingenuity and our political and moral capacities to deal with the issues of today is large. One key problem is that we are working with a model of democracy founded before industrialisation when the population of the world was less than 1 billion in total.
We must update our institutions so that there is formal, publicised, long-term advice, which will educate politicians and the public. Education is vital, not just about the menace of an overheated, overpopulated world, but about greed and the selfishness that is integral to current ideas of success.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/27/henry-porter-saving-planet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
