Can we save the planet without a revolution?

Can we save our planet with a revolution?

How much risk of making things worse from a revolution?

Another post promoting revolution to save the planet, from Damon Rusden at Pundit – Can we save the planet without a revolution?

The short answer is no; the long answer requires an explanation of what form that revolution will take.

I don’t know how he can be certain about that. Revolution implies drastic and rapid changes – I don’t know how many governments will risk going down that path.

After protests in France over fuel tax increases the Government there has just suspended the fuel tax – French PM announces suspension of fuel tax hikes after ‘Yellow Vest’ protests

The backpedaling by President Emmanuel Macron’s government appeared designed to calm the nation, coming three days after the worst unrest on the streets of Paris in decades.

“No tax is worth putting the nation’s unity in danger,” Philippe said, just three weeks after insisting that the government wouldn’t change course in its determination to wean French consumers off polluting fossil fuels.

A more pertinent question is whether revolution is possible without provoking counter-revolts. France just tried one tax rise, hardly a revolutionary step.

Rusden:

We all know we’re shafting the planet, and headlines every other week are making sure we don’t forget. As another Conference of the Parties (COP) conference kicks off this week – this time in Poland, this time called COP24 – we have been warned that decisive action in the next two years will be crucial.

The real problem is the solution; collectively we are still failing to meet our climate targets (by a lot) even after the heralded Paris Agreement and a global consensus on the dangers threatening us as a species. The issues need to be placed in the context of survival, because that’s what is causing this zero-sum game. The survival of our existing economic paradigm or the entire biosphere.

We cannot continue to be aware of the risks which come as a cause of climate change and believe that changing our coffee cups, picking up litter on a Sunday or buying solar panels will subdue the wave of destruction that is approaching.

This battle is not one we can win individually, nor can we afford to be content with micronized solutions.

There are many practical solutions which are put forward. A change of consumption is one method. Less meat, less agriculture, more forests. While this seems a feasible solution, it is simply too slow and too mired in development debate.

So if we accept that it is our imbedded, ‘extractionism’ method of production which is destroying the planet, we as individuals are not at fault and we’re running out of time, what do we do?

Hold those accountable responsible. Whatever form this takes.

Prosecution of the genuine polluters – the oil companies, agriculture giants, unsustainable logging companies and political enablers. There is precedent in local and international courts, but there would need to be serious political will.

Pressure politicians. While some governments are moving in the right direction, no change has come about from a complacent public. Some of the biggest changes have come from a local campaign at a council level and climbed up the governance hierarchy.

As what has just happened in France shows, there can also be strong opposition to change.

There has been a concerted effort over the past decade or so to embed Green activists in councils at local level and try to generate a revolution from there, but even relatively modest changes like installing cycle lanes and removing car parks has been controversial and contentious.

There is growing annoyance here in Dunedin over the disruptions caused by putting in cycle lanes that are hardly used, while road traffic flow is noticeably getting worse.

Public demand for taxpayers’ money to be used exclusively for green investment; ACC and the Super Fund are billion-dollar investment portfolios and could have a real impact. Some banks and universities have also done so due to public pressure.

  • Boycott. As individuals we cannot do much; as a collective we can do more. Polluting industries will respond. Awareness campaigns across the globe prove this.
  • Strike. Workers are the ones who produce; if there is no production there is no pollution. Strikes are an important part of workplace relations and bosses will get the message.
  • Shut it down. Hard to argue this wouldn’t make it clear that we want an immediate transition.

All of this must be done comprehensively.

We cannot continue extraction, production and materialism on the levels we are now. We cannot continue to live in isolation, or pretend that unrealised technology will save us. We must radically change the way we function, at the source. With direct action. And we have about ten years left to do so.

That is not going to be easy (to get public support and to get Government compliance).

And there is no guarantee that any revolution would succeed.

Nor is there any guarantee that adverse reactions and unintended consequences won’t make things worse.

It has already provoked violent counter-protests in France.  That sort of reaction could get much worse.

The poor people of the world would become more vulnerable – they would bear most of the brunt of radical changes. Richer people can more easily afford to adapt (or avoid).

It would be a very risky experiment with no way of knowing what the outcome would be.


From Hawkes Bay Today last year: (Damon Rusden: Our reliance on a failed model) – Damon Rusden is a politics international relations and public policy student at Victoria University. He is the Green Party candidate for Napier in the upcoming general elections.

His views seem to have not been very popular in last year’s election – Napier electorate:

  • Candidate votes 1,386 (3.63%)
  • Green electorate vote 1,938 (5.00%)

 

Leave a comment

102 Comments

  1. David

     /  December 5, 2018

    Funnily the air pollution in London is worsening for the first time in decades because of little used cycle lanes causing far more congestion.
    The climate debate is really odd in that we see taxpayer funded predictions of the world ending, hand wring and earnestness from MPs then very little action but then we see no real bad effects despite 25 years of doomsday predictions.

    Reply
    • Griff.

       /  December 5, 2018

      Ah yes Dave and the old straw man argument .

      The climate debate is really odd in that we see taxpayer funded predictions of the world ending

      AKA illogical gibbering.

      Reply
  2. robertguyton

     /  December 5, 2018

    Damon Rusden said:
    “The short answer is no; the long answer requires an explanation of what form that revolution will take.”
    Pete George said: “I don’t know how he can be certain about that.”
    Perhaps reading through Rusden’s explanation would help you understand?

    Reply
    • Revolution looks to be far from a certainty to me. It is the dream of some activists that shows no sign of popular support in new Zealand (and the opposite of popular support in France).

      Rusden proposes that a revolution will happen, but is far from convincing that it will happen.

      Talk of revolution and extreme changes may be counter-productive – many people may well be turned off by talk of extreme measures that will make their employment and way of life extremely uncertain.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  December 5, 2018

        ” … extreme measures that will make their employment and way of life extremely uncertain”

        … like ‘extreme measures’ did back in 1984 …? (No doubt hastening the crisis we’re in now?)

        Not many people were talking about it back then though. It was cloaked in Treasury & New Right secrecy … because the changes required the ‘Shock Doctrine’ factor … a coup de tat or ‘unexpected’ financial crisis …

        So the fact people are talking about it could be a good sign?

        It might be a re-evolution rather than a revolution?

        Reply
        • The Consultant

           /  December 5, 2018

          like ‘extreme measures’ did back in 1984
          ….
          It might be a re-evolution rather than a revolution?

          Oh I’m sure that was always the intention as a few comments from the occasional scientist, UN official and politician over the years have revealed when talking about “combatting AGW”. Occasional-Cortex is simply the latest and most obvious one as she said this the pther day at a Bernie Sanders hosted (natch) Climate Change conference:

          “And it’s inevitable that we can use the transition to 100% renewable energy as the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic, social, and racial justice in the United States of America. That is our proposal and that is what we are here to do,”

          Science and technology are on the edge of the debate, despite all the claims that they are at the centre. For Bernie, OC and company it’s just another lever, no different than when Lenin gleefully watching the price of bread increase in 1917.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  December 5, 2018

            “Freedom” turned out to be at the edge of the ‘Chicago School’, New Right and neoliberal economics debate, didn’t it?

            What’s the difference? I like outcomes … We will know them by their works.

            Their works began with Pinochet’s coup d’etat in Chile and progressed through Reaganism and Thatcherism to Rogered-nomics via ‘shock doctrine’ tactics …

            Neoliberal ideology ‘in practice’ turned out to be a vehicle for further economic, social and by association racial inequality and injustice …

            ‘Things’ get used as vehicles … What’s new?

            Reply
        • Gezza

           /  December 5, 2018

          Coup de tat? Feck.

          Coup d’état. Just saying.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  December 5, 2018

            Coup de tat; smacking the poor puddytat for eating the budgie ?

            Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  December 5, 2018

        I wonder if you’re imagining that ‘revolution” means “violent uprising and overthrow”, rather than “turning” – hence your comments?

        Reply
  3. robertguyton

     /  December 5, 2018

    David said: “ we those who have their head in the sand see no real bad effects despite 25 years of doomsday predictions.”
    Fify

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 5, 2018

      Correction: those who can read a thermometer see no bad effects unlike those who can only read a newspaper or FB.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  December 5, 2018

        where have you inserted your thermometer…Al?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 5, 2018

          I have one that reads both outside and inside temps, B. So far I haven’t had to buy either snow shoes or a camel.

          Reply
  4. The Consultant

     /  December 5, 2018

    The only thing I love about revolutions is that eventually the revolutionaries themselves are put up against the wall by the revolution.

    Reply
  5. Noel

     /  December 5, 2018
    Reply
  6. MaureenW

     /  December 5, 2018

    The planet doesn’t need saving – it’s the people that are fucked. Think that was one of Carlin’s observations- he was right.

    Reply
  7. Treuddyn Ted

     /  December 5, 2018

    Indeed MaureenW, you have it in one simple sentence ” it’s the people that are fucked”
    I’d simplify that further by defining which people are fucked and adding “in the head”

    The thing that all the alarmists (so-called scientists included) do not know for 100% certainty with 100% precision is how this planet was created from day one.

    Forget all the meaningless graphs, data, modelling, experiments, reports, discussions.
    Unless you know precisely how every element in an object works, you simply cannot alter just one in it to suit a belief or theory and expect all the other elements you know nothing or very little about, to fall into line.
    For Planet Earth to have life, it cannot live without The Moon and The Sun,
    Thus before you even contemplate understanding the programming of Planet Earth, you must first understand the programming of The Moon and The Sun.
    If you believe The Sun has a finite life and is approaching the end of that life, you have to be fucked in the head to imagine no changes occurring for Planet Earth.

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  December 5, 2018

      My tinfoil hat will come in handy after all …

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  December 5, 2018

        Please don’t go out wearing it in a high, or flat, treeless location during a thunderstorm PZ.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  December 5, 2018

          I’d never do that Gezza … I have a metal & tinfoil umbrella to hold in those weather conditions …

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  December 5, 2018

            Have you had thunderstorms up your way in the last couple of days? We had another last night. The day before one rolled up the Hutt Valley. Dunno if they’ve had any down south.

            Reply
            • PartisanZ

               /  December 5, 2018

              Not up here … They were bad in Auckland apparently … and further South … just rain and drizzle up here …

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              Right. So they’re targeting Auckland & Wellington. Hmm.

              Peters? o_O

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 5, 2018

              Climate change perhaps …?

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              If something important is constantly changing and completely unpredictable I always think “Peters?” If any of these thunderstorms suddenly turned around and went back in the opposite direction I think that’d probably nail it.

  8. Gezza

     /  December 5, 2018

    Just saying

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  December 5, 2018

      The way I see it there now seems to be the beginnings of evidence of severe weather events that will slowly start to increase exponentially as the planet warms & if it is AGW at fault, debating cherry picked data by proponents for & against no longer actually matters & I’m not interested in that. Species that fail to adapt to severe enuf environmental changes on this planet disappear. If it turns out that we are one of them, the planet doesn’t care. It’s a life-generating machine.

      Maybe it will produce a better, more intelligent life form to replace us? One less vicious & destructive to every other life form.

      Looked at purely dispassionately & objectively, it would probably be a good thing because, Christ, look around the world at what our species does – to itself, & to every other species – and what it has done throughout history.

      Taken as a whole we can certainly be seen in many respects as a malignant organism. But we are incapable of seeing that because we see our intellectual capacity as something that makes us special. When in reality, we just are one of 4 Great Apes, & are basically large animals that monopolise resources, regularly prey on our own species, & destroy the natural environment we mark out as our territory or that contain the resources we have come to require.

      Like I say, the planet doesn’t need us. And we are actually incapable of stopping it doing anything that it wants to: it just does it, & deals with cleaning up the aftermath itself. Maybe it built in a fail-safe option with homo sapiens sapiens. One that ensured when too many of us became dangerously unstable we would remove ourselves from the system.

      Cheer up though. It may not happen. And if it does, it won’t be our problem. Try to think of yourselves as another evolutionary dead end. There’ve been many.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  December 5, 2018

        Cheer up, Gezza! You’re often wrong about things and probably are here as well.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  December 5, 2018

          It doesn’t distress me, robert. I’m happy enuf where I am & it won’t affect me much if at all before my ashes go into the water. I’d just be part of a species that historically once roamed the planet & went extinct.

          Reply
        • Gezza

           /  December 5, 2018

          I think humans will probably adapt to Climate Change for a period, but we seem incapable of stopping slaughtering members of our own species on now-huge scales because our intellectual capabilities include the capacity to do so & our brains still operate in ways that are fundamentally territorial, but our minds have the unfortunate inbuilt habit of inventing & believing in concepts – like religions – & political systems – & emotions like love & hate – that we extend our animal instincts & territorial behaviours into & war with other over constantly. Other species don’t do this.

          I imagine you think of yourself as special, robert, and in one way I would certainly agree with that. But to me, looking around the world, and even here, at Kiwiland, I see the same old same old. My generation was going end war & environmental destruction. The next generations intend to too. But they won’t – not on the evidence of history.

          That’s just an observation. And I’ll be right. All the evidence shows that.

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  December 5, 2018

            We may be culling the species around the place, but globally population numbers are still heading in one direction, and that is not down – although it is certainly ameliorating quickly as we reach peak-human.

            Reply
  9. robertguyton

     /  December 5, 2018

    Gezza – I assume you’ve transcended the desire to slaughter members of your own species. Why do you believe that the rest of humanity can’t do the same?

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  December 5, 2018

      Because throughout recorded human history & prehistory there have been millions of homo sapiens sapiens who have transceded the desire to slaughter members of their own species. And millions of those have been slaughtered by those who have not. And many of those who have slaughtered members of their own species have been – and still are – doing so were – and are – the offspring of homo sapiens sapiens individuals who had transcended the desire to slaughter members of their own species. I have explained above why this is so.

      We will not survive a global planetary or a galactic cataclysm anyway. There is no reason to think we can. A random supernova light years away in our own Milky Way Galaxy could happen any time & obliterate every living thing on this planet & in fact the entire solar system. They happen out in the universe everywhere, all the time.

      If it occurred at some point where members of our species had been able to colonise a planet in another system or planet far enuf away, they will have taken our easily damageable genetic code & our fundamentally animal nature with them. So the malignancies will go with them.

      Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  December 5, 2018

      “Why can’t the rest of humanity do the same?” Probably because it never has.
      Every label that humans wear are a cause for conflict. Whether the label(s) are male, female, nationality, culture, religion, political affiliation, marital status, gender status, wealth status; people seem to have nothing better to do than create conflict over their labels. As I said earlier, the planet doesn’t care – humans are nothing more than an infestation upon an enduring host. The alarmism over climatic conditions is another scam to transfer money from the working classes to the non-working classes. Birds have more sense than humans.
      Are you able to tell me why we have had at least 12 years of squawking and hand-wringing over Man-Made Global Warming – with the shouting getting louder and more alarming – “we must do something”. Is it because when they implement their new taxes, they’re hoping people won’t riot? If the situation is so desperate why not just do it? Perhaps because it won’t change anything.

      Reply
      • MaureenW

         /  December 5, 2018

        While squawking, look out for snakes in yer bed. “Experts warning” ….
        https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/109105921/heat-could-herald-snakes-in-your-bed-experts-warn

        Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  December 5, 2018

        ““Why can’t the rest of humanity do the same?” Probably because it never has.”
        Nonsense. Vast numbers of humans across history have “transcended the desire to slaughter members of their own species”.

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  December 5, 2018

          Where? They’re either the slaughterers or the slaughtered. Where is this utopia you speak of?

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  December 5, 2018

            What absolute nonsense you claim. It seems pointless to continue this line of “discussion” with you, given the lack of adroitness you are exhibiting.

            Reply
            • MaureenW

               /  December 5, 2018

              You have the opportunity to provide me with a lesson – I’m disappointed that you now won’t tell me who these hand-clappy civilisations are?

            • robertguyton

               /  December 5, 2018

              “civilizations” – there’s the proof that: you aren’t understanding the conversation, and I quote from an earlier comment which discussed; “Family groups and non-civilised communities ” and the reason why I believe it would be a waste of time debating the issue with you.

        • Gezza

           /  December 5, 2018

          They’re not the problem, though. In fact sometimes they end up being part of the slaughters, either as victims or as perpetrators, because of the inbuilt aggressive animal impulses & passions of humans, which make it a relatively easy matter to trigger them into vituperation & vengeful or compliant individuals killing others to remove threats or protect themselves. I think you worry too much about this. Our species is what it is. It won’t be around forever. And it won’t change. There will be periods of relative calm & peace at all times in different places until the usual clashes over territory, control over others, and control over resources break out. It can start out with just, say politics, or religions, or both or just economic or natural disasters, or alliances with other homo sapiens sapiens groups who coerce compliance & it all gets put of hand. Staying the hell out of everybody’s wars is a good idea until some other group in ascendancy wants yours & then you’re screwed if you plan to defend yourselves with dances with hankies on your head & no one will give you a handy. We’re a pretty dangerous lot collectively & individually when the threats or perceived threats are there, or when, say some monogamous maters suddenly discover their mate’s no longer monogamous.

          Just enjoy being somewhere safe from all that shit that mostly & avoid dealing drugs or anything that can bring you into contact with brutal aggressors. Whatever happens in the future you have no control over.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  December 5, 2018

            AI will change humanity in ways we can’t anticipate.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              Artificial Intelligence & hubris could very well be part of the planet’s or universe’s solution to the problem of the inherent malignancy of the homo sapiens sapiens species. A.I. has already shown itself easily able to be used as just one more way of malignant strains or individuals who riddle our gene pool confuse & attack other members of our species.

              When it goes completely independent & able improve its own performance & efficiency & to self-replicate, it could be difficult to programme into it any constraints on it eliminating rivals or dangers to itself or its existence.

              It has no conscience nor can empathy or any emotional brake be built into it. If we apply the kind of moral decision-making judgements we claim to be able to make & it can observe & analyse the species behaviour it could well identify serious defects best mitigated by our deletion.

              Stephen Hawking if I recall correctly remarked on this very possibility. Mind you, I accept that he’s only a brilliant physicist & you’ve got a PhD in Chemistry so you might know more about such matters than he did.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              I don’t see any fundamental reason why empathy can’t be built into it. We simply don’t know what can and will be done with it.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              Attempt for me a plain language piece of code that would deliver empathy to a machine Al. I’d be very interested to see it.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”
              A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
              A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
              A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

              I think they probably tried this kind of thing with AI-run self drive cars & spectularly failed when hubris by drivers failed to override it.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              It will need to read emotions, G, so it requires senses. Then it will need knowledge of causes and effects in order to know how to speak and act. All that will come.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              It will need to read emotions, G

              How will it know when Trump is lying?

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              How will it read the emotions or predict the actions of pyschopaths, or other individuals who don’t display them? How will it be able to make moral judgements when folk here can’t even agree on what is moral or permissable or write specific rules around those?

              Somebody will almost certainly build a rogue self-replicating A I machine at some point simply driven by their animal instinct to dominate other similar Great Apes of the homo sapiens sapiens to prove their intellectual superiority to their rivals by building one that can make all its own decisions and replicate itself.

              The faster AI develops in the military sphere to respond instantaneously to perceived threats that are also being developed in the US to deliver lethal weapons in seconds the higher the likliehood something will go wrong.

              Humans are unreliable judges of what is good for the planet or themselves and the planet doesn’t need us. We need it.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              How do you know?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              That was in response to your previous comment.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              Of course you are now asking completely different questions and I’ve already said we cannot predict what will happen. But AI will be used to improve predictions and to explore options humans may not have thought of – just as chess playing programs have already done.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              How do I know when Trump’s lying?

              Nobody knows. The best anyone can do is examine the number of times he’s been proven to have done so in public utterances by those who are fascinated by his sheer volume (he’s gotta be the biggest bestest everything, so it fits, psychologically that he’s the world’s biggest liar, if not the best) on average, compared to other politicians and a control group of known and psychologically studied pathological liars, and make a working assumption that he’s lying all of the time until proven otherwise.

              I reckon.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              There you go, you’ve sketched the algorithm then. Personally, I agree. Trump’s words are entertainment and warfare with no necessary connection with literal truth. Therefore I observe his deeds instead.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              So you’ve agreed. Empathy can’t be described to a machine in any way that could stop it making a logical decision humans were a danger to its existence or survival or the survival of other species on which it depends. Thanks Al.

              This is getting a bit morbid. With a bit of luck – if it happens far sooner than anyone ever anticipated – hopefully when humans start getting deleted here – it’ll happen up north first – and you’ll just have time to email or text me a warning, so I can drop everything except me undies, dress up in purple and black, shove some of my late wife’s crimson-red lippy on me moosh and forehead, jump the fence, and get down in the stream and pretend to be a pukeko until it’s jumped the Strait and headed South.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              You don’t understand programming, G. Empathy isn’t described, it is implemented. Just like yours.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              You WILL text me, though. If it happens. Right?
              I’d text you if I know it’s coming and taking out our southern friends first – before I do the pukeko thing. Or maybe from down there.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              You don’t understand programming, G.

              I did a little bit of SAS coding for a few weeks. I hated debugging. So I decided to go back to working in a lunatic asylum for the next 30 years. It was more interesting.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              The trick with debugging is you have to discover your own mistakes and invalid assumptions. Would be good discipline for Robert.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              The trick with debugging is you have to discover your own mistakes and invalid assumptions.

              Yes. That was what was so annoying. And what made working in my last department so interesting (if bloody stressful at times). Then I could just observe the rolling stream of professional outside business consultants coming thru and carrying out the briefs of the series of incompetents ( & two absolute lunatics) running the place, point out their mistakes and invalid assumptions, get told I was wrong, and put my head down and watch the resulting chaos, destruction and slaughter until the next review.

  10. robertguyton

     /  December 5, 2018

    Family groups and non-civilised communities have managed to live and thrive without behaving “malignantly”, Gezza. Cities, not so much. There’s a lesson there. You seem to believe humans are inherently “malignant”, or at least their behaviour is. I don’t agree. I believe we’ve fallen into a cultural “black hole”.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  December 5, 2018

      Yes. I know. We have been so very, very fortunate to have been born & live in this country, at this time, & not during either of the world wars, or in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Northern Nigeria, or Libya, or Bosnia, or the Central African Republic, or as African Americans or Latinos in the wrong suburbs of Chicago, or in many parts of Mexico, or found enjoying a toke by President Duterte’s armed friends, or attending the wrong school at the wrong time somewhere in the USA, for example.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  December 5, 2018

        Gezza, yes and no IMHO. We are indeed very, very fortunate to have been born &/or live in this country, at this time … and yet we are all inheritors – for better or worse – of the Western European militarism, war, violence, malignancy, dominance, supremacy, greed and duplicity et al that forged and ‘created’ this nation …

        Beneficiaries of a tenuous ‘Peace in Our Times’ we are also the heirs of Wetiko Disease …

        https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/tag/wetiko/

        “Cultural Black Hole” is a fairly accurate description of Wetiko I reckon.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  December 5, 2018

          What do you think would persuade you to abandon this hell hole and move to say, Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or Syria, or the PRC, for a better life and a more relaxed, less complicated, more welcoming and friendly, more civilised society?

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  December 5, 2018

            Happy to answer a relevant question Gezza … if you have one … ?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              No you’re not. I just asked you one and you haven’t answered it.

              If our society is so, depraved, so bad, as you believe, where is there a better one? What would persuade you to move there?

              Is our society bad or is it actually pretty much ok for the majority and maybe not what a few others would like?

              Which others should determine what kind of society all should have? Is ours less free than those others?

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 5, 2018

              You didn’t ask a relevant question at all. You attributed meaning to my post which isn’t there, in a derogatory sort of way … You ‘malignantly’ tried to score some points in the one-upmanship game that constitutes most communication between males …

              I never said “hell hole” or any such thing …

              I said, to summarize, most of us live privileged lives – settling, after extensive acculturation, for “pretty much okay” – we learn Wetiko then feed Wetiko – in an ostensibly and [probably] temporarily ‘peaceful’ society which is simultaneously heir to a warlike British civilization responsible, along with cousins Portugal, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Holland, France, Italy and others – Western European – for the conquest and colonization of almost the entire known world using mostly force of arms and, among other weapons, genocide …

              Ours is inherently depraved but this doesn’t mean A) there are better societies elsewhere on the same colonized Planet Earth or B) that ours can’t be improved …

              The majority HAVE determined what kind of society we have … One which appears to need a revolution to save itself from itself …

            • Gezza

               /  December 6, 2018

              Is our society bad or is it actually pretty much ok for the majority and maybe not what a few others would like?

              Which others should determine what kind of society all should have? Is ours less free than those others?

              I think ours is dynamic but built on sound basic principles some of which have been eroded of skewed & which has the capacity to be restored or improved.

              A society or system like that I’ve seen described as the way Switzerland works might be worth a try. But first of all one has to identify reasons why the majority here should want to adopt it. One can’t assume one’s own preferred idea or group identity has all or even the best solutions if they are a better psychological or cultural fit with an outlier for some reason.

              One also can’t assume that wrongs of the past can never be forgiven and learnt from. How would Ngapuhi ever be reconciled with other iwi they predated on if that were the case? Or Te Atiawa with descendants of the Moriori & the Waikato tribes who descended into the Taranaki rohe as result of Ngapuhi rampages? These are things all nations & cultures have had to work through.

              I’ve described elsewhere what the fundamental problem is with homo sapiens sapiens and you demonstrate the aggression and hostility we are capable of towards other members of our species as much as anyone else. You just do it online.

              Societies are built on events in history that can be reconciled and improved on and European democracies seem to me to offer the best options for the kind of improvements we have seen around the world.

            • Gezza

               /  December 6, 2018

              You didn’t ask a relevant question at all. You attributed meaning to my post which isn’t there, in a derogatory sort of way …
              No I didn’t. I deduced from your comments there and at other times that you think Pakeha society and European societies are uniquely horribly diseased and the worst thing that ever happened to the world. That is the impression you consistently seem to portray to me.

              You ‘malignantly’ tried to score some points in the one-upmanship game that constitutes most communication between males …
              No I didn’t. I teased you with a little light humour and you immediately reacted angrily to my questioning of your argument and my light-heated attempt to get you to elucidate on what kind of society you are advocating for instead of just constantly berating ours, because that is what you frequently do.

              I think perhaps that because you are chronically sarcastic and see things from only your perspective your automatic assumption is that that is what I am doing.

              It’s not. I have told you before you are useless at trying to read my (or anyone else’s mind) and you shouldn’t do it. You always get it wrong. You can just ask me questions any time. I see many perspectives.

    • Pink David

       /  December 5, 2018

      “I believe we’ve fallen into a cultural “black hole”.”

      You really are funny Robert. Here you are proving my theory that the vast majority who push climate change as a major problem are simply looking for a reason to tear the world down as it currently exist.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  December 5, 2018

        Your inability to understand my argument or claims, David, is not surprising and typical of your previous interactions with me.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 5, 2018

          Your total inability to support your argument or claims is no longer surprising either, Robert.

          Reply
  11. Zedd

     /  December 5, 2018

    I still hear.. ‘We are now likely heading for the next GREAT extinction” (mostly Humans ?)

    We only have one planet & its getting to the tipping point.. led by the likes of MrT & the ‘top 1%’ who really believe they are deserving of about 50% of everything or more.. meanwhile ignoring things like ‘Climate Change’ as they happily sit in their Ivory Towers.. looking down on the rest of us 😦

    ‘Most Heads in the sand’…. “We’re DOOMED I tell ya !” 😦

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  December 5, 2018

      Zedd, you are part of the 1%.

      Reply
      • Zedd

         /  December 5, 2018

        @PD

        I am certainly NOT in ‘top 1%’.. likely closer to the bottom 1%, but actually, Im just ‘one of many’

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 5, 2018

      Odd that we haven’t had an actual extinction for over 100 years if we are in the middle of a Great Extinction isn’t it Zedd? Or do you see nothing remotely odd about that?

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  December 5, 2018

        Not so odd that so much of our flora and fauna is on the brink of extinction. On the brink? That’s heaps better than over the edge, eh Alan!

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 5, 2018

          Few are on the brink, Robert, and most of those that are won’t be missed even if they fall over it.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  December 5, 2018

            Oh sure, fine. But nobody ever surveys the plants, the trees, the animals and the insects and bacteria concerned & finds out how they feel about it, do they? >:D

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              To the victors go the spoils and the ability to write history, G. Was ever thus.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              Could end up being a virus or bacteria that’s the ultimate victor over the human infection. In which case you’d be correct. The history would be written in its DNA. Or an asteroid, or the madness of a nuclear holocaust, or the a nearby nova or supernova, in which case you’d still be right. The history would be written in their physics descriptions of the event in mathematics.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 5, 2018

              Trouble is, we’re spoiling the spoils. Don’t expect you to see that though, Alan. Greed’s a blinder!

          • robertguyton

             /  December 5, 2018

            “With nearly 4,000 of New Zealand’s plant and animal species currently in some danger of going extinct, it is imperative that we understand…”
            Wasting your time with Alan.
            http://www.endangeredspecies.org.nz/projects/10-most-endangered

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  December 5, 2018

              “Your total inability to support your argument or claims is no longer surprising either, Robert.”
              Pffffffft!

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              You need to address this flatulence problem buddy. Hate to end up stuck in a lift with you. 😉

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              It’s those silent ones that often leave folk gasping.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              Just to take the top one of your list, the Maui dolphin case is full of the most utter b.s. you could ever find. Firstly it is as indistinguishable from the Hector’s dolphin as your blonde is from your brunette. It is not a separate species. Secondly its population has been estimated three times only in three completely different ways. We have no idea whether it is stable, decreasing or increasing. Or what its historic variations hsve been. Ludicrous.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 5, 2018

              And the rest of the list? Can you find ways to deny they’re in trouble too?Seems to be your game. Nothing to see here, folks. Nothing’s in danger of extinction and if anything does go, who gives???

            • robertguyton

               /  December 5, 2018

              More fart jokes – top shelf stuff, Gezza!

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              Hey bud:

              Pffffffft!

              Remember? You started the fart jokes. >:D

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 5, 2018

              Oh God, do we have to go thru them all, Robert?

              Ok, the second one is Conspirator’s weevil. It isn’t extinct as he misrepresented. It was wrongly thought extinct from 1922-2015 because of habitat changes but isn’t and environmentalists are entertaining themselves breeding it. Honestly, who cares and what difference would it make if Burkes Pass was swallowed up by an earthquake and it disappeared?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  December 5, 2018

              There was an old man of Calcutta
              Who greased his bumhole with butter,
              So the farts that before
              Were a deafening roar
              Were a soft, oleaginous mutter.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              You never cease to surprise me Kitty.

            • Gezza

               /  December 5, 2018

              Just as a matter of mild interest, Kitty, have you, as part of your literary travels, ever read Monty Python’s Big Red Book? (It has a blue cover, of course.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s