You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2008.
It’s obvious when you hold a petri dish up and smear some bacteria on it that, without intervention, one day the bacteria will run out of resources and die. Our minds can comprehend that, despite the tiny, tiny size of the baceria at work, they will run out of food. We can see the full extent of their food, the resource we have given them to survive on. The Bacteria, we have to assume, is unaware that it is in a little biosphere with enough food to last it X amount of time. Once it starts multiplying it has half-X, a quarter-X, one-eighth-X, etc.
We assumes the bacteria doesn’t understand its situation because we imagine that, given the same set of circumstances, we would be more frugal with the resource, aiming to make it last as long as we possibly can. We assume the bacteria is stupid and we are smart. Indeed, when faced with a size of resource that fits into our field of view we can be very frugal, we can ration for ourselves and decide how much to use on any given day with the end goal of making it last as long as we can. When faced with a resource that doesn’t fit into our field of view we act like the bacteria.
It brings up Richard Heinberg’s question again: Are we smarter than yeast?
When you try and make them face the reality of a infinite growth system on a finite world, most people don’t have the head-space for it. You can try all you like to tell them that inifinity inside something finite doesn’t work. You can use the Kalam Cosmological Argument (intended as a proof of God’s/Allah’s existence, but serviceable), which hinges on Zeno’s Paradox to shoot down the idea of infinity within a finite space. You can pick numbers so astronomically huge and depletion rates so tiny and show them how steady depletion at that rate isn’t sustainable, let alone a growth in depletion rate. They tend not to comprehend. Whether this is a case of it being impossible to tell someone something that the way they lead their lives necessitates being counter to what you’re saying, or it’s a case of the failings of the education system yet again, it’s not important. You often can’t explain this in such a way as it passes the filters in place over most people’s minds. Growth is good. Infinite growth is highly desireable. Recessions are terrible. Ever increasing profits are to be rewarded with praise.
“We are imprisoned by our political Hippocratic oath: we will deliver unto the electorate more goodies than anybody else. Such an oath was only ever achievable by increasing our despoliation of the world’s resources. Our economic model is not so different in the cold light of day to that of the Third Reich – which knew it could only expand by grabbing what it needed from its neighbours.
“Genocide followed. Now there is a case to answer that genocide is once again an apt description of how we are pursuing business as usual, wilfully ignoring the consequences for the poorest people in the world.” – Challen, ‘We must think the unthinkable, and take voters with us,’ The Independent, March 28, 2006.
There are resources which are termed as ‘renewable’. The tag is often used interchangeably with ‘infinite’, but a lot of them aren’t. Trees are often called renewable, but they are certainly not infinite. They are renewable so long as they are used at a rate which they can recover from. Since we are losing over 2% of the forest cover of the planet each year, it’s not extreme to suggest we are using trees at a rate greater than they are replenished. We live in a growth-based system. If we are deforresting at a rate of 2% this year, then next year we aim to be deforresting at a rate of 2.04%, the year after that we aim to be deforresting at a rate of 2.08%, 10 years after that we aim to be deforresting at a rate of 2.54%, in a further 10 years we aim to be deforresting at a rate of 3.09%. That’s with the ’stable’ growth that most governments want of 2% per year.
If you change that to the more optimistic growth desires of large companies, who want to grow as much as possible but we’ll cap it at 5% instead then 20 years after that 2% starting point you’re at 5.05%. Of course, when you’re talking about organisms which need other organisms around to make their next generation then you’re talking about a much more complicated system, but if the rate of tree reproduction could be kept constant while this rising number of tree destruction continues then 20 years after the start of the 5% growth chart you’re left with about half the trees you started with. Small percentages result in a depletion that is horrific.
No one is really willing to accept that they may need to be paid less and less each year, mother culture has promised more and more money each year. No one is really willing to accept that they may need to have fewer and fewer things each year, mother culture has promised more and more things each year. The argument often spewed by those on the other side of the fence is that I just want to make you all live in caves again. That’s not really accurate. I’m saying one day we will probably be living in caves again, maybe not in our life time, but within the life time of our traceable children. I’m suggesting we might want to make that time as far off in the future as we possibly can. I’m suggesting we might want to control the decrease in resource use rather than have it dictated to us by the planet.
I’m only suggesting that people start to ask the questions, start to debate what needs to be debated. I’m also suggesting that a lot of the standard discourse around these issues is fog, smear, smoke blown out by large companies to hide the reality, to cloud judgements.
Where I to tell you a tale of someone being robbed, would you say anything like: “Well, they were asking for it. I mean, look at the house they live in. And why buy a huge TV anyway? A black and white TV would have been just as good and no one would have stolen that. Also, what’s with having glass all over the house? That’s just like asking someone to break it and steal stuff.”
No? Why not? Would you not, instead, say something like: “Robbers are jerks, fuck. I’d hate that to happen to me. I hope they catch whoever did it!”
If I were to tell you a tale about someone being hit by a car that mounted the kerb they were standing on, would you say anything like: “Well, it was their fault, walking along a street like that. They should know better than that really. They should stay away from areas where it might happen, then they’d be safe!”
No? Why not? Would you instead say something like: “Dangerous drivers like that should really be kept off the roads, they’re a total menace!”
Both of the above situations are intended to illustrate two points I want to make about rape. Why are the women held to be responsible for it? There are a large number of occasions where statements like “why was she wearing that?! I mean, come on, that’s almost like asking for it,” are seen as perfectly valid, even though the statistical impact of clothing on rape instances is negligible. There’s no evidence, other than anecdotal, which actually supports the theory that conservative dress actually diminishes the likelihood of being raped.
Also, there’s the fallacy that being in the wrong place is the woman’s fault. They were there and so being raped was the logical outcome. Statements like, “Well, what does she expect, walking down a dark alley alone at night?” are held as valid.
Clothing and location are very low on the order of contributing factors to rape. The biggest contributing factor? Being in any form of a relationship with a man. Never is it suggested that a woman doesn’t see or speak to her father or uncle, for example. Never is it suggested that a woman isn’t left alone with her brothers or any male relative. Yet, compared to clothing and location, these factors are much higher on the deciding factors of rape instances.
What am I getting at? The ‘advice’ isn’t worth the breath/paper/bytes it’s given with. It doesn’t actually address the problem. It doesn’t actually give real advice.
Men rape. Women are raped. The difference there? Men are the active ones, women are the passive ones. Actions or inactions on the part of the women are much less effective than actions or inactions on the part of the man. If we are to stop rapes it’s not the women we need to be telling and lecturing and giving advice to, it’s the men.
Advice we could give men? How about:
- No means no.
- There is no cause/reason/excuse to have sex with a woman who isn’t happy about it. This isn’t limited to situations where they say no. It includes situations where you have any ground to believe that the woman is uncomfortable.
- Not having sex should be your default. If the woman doesn’t seem interested then not having sex is the answer. If the woman seems uncomfortable then not having sex is the answer. Having sex should be an active decision involving both of you.
- It is not unreasonable for you to make sure sexual activities are with the consent of the person you are with. It is not unreasonable for a woman to say yes today, no tomorrow and yes the next day. Yes today does not mean yes at any other time. Yes now does not mean yes in an hour’s time, or the next time that night you have a hard on.
- “Why don’t you come in and have a drink?” does not imply sex. It implies a drink, but doesn’t even guarantee that much.
- An uncomfortable look means no. No means no.
- If she’s unhappy then it’s not a good time to have sex. If she’s drunk it’s not a good time to have sex. If she’s on drugs it’s not a good time to have sex. If she, in any way, seems to not be interested then it’s not a good time to have sex.
- It’s her body. It’s her body. It’s HER body! Not yours.
- She has the right to take back her yes. At any time. At any point. If you don’t listen then it’s rape. You are a rapist if you ignore so much as her negative body language. You can be inside her and she can withdraw her consent. She can take back her yes at any moment and it is your responsibility to listen to that.
Rape comes about because society doesn’t acknowledge a woman’s right to her own body. It doesn’t acknowledge that she can say yes or no at any moment. The biggest instance of this, the most disgusting high profile instance of this attitude that I know of is the case of R v A. The Labour government (they have done some good stuff, but then, you churn out that many laws and some of them have to stick) changed the law on evidence in a rape case so that the woman’s sexual history was inadmissible. The reason being two-fold:
- If a woman said yes yesterday it’s irrelevant to today, she can still say no, the same applies if she said yes to someone, a group of someones, a legion of someones, she can still say no to you.
- Rape cases were invariably turned on their head so the woman had to defend themselves from accusations that they were a slut when that is actually not relevant to her ability to say no.
However, in R v A the House of Lords said that the woman’s sexual history can be relevant to the case, and so ignored the law. They allowed a man to use the fact he’d had a sexual relationship with the woman in the past to be used as a defence. I’ll have to repeat that, they allowed a man to use the fact he’d had a sexual relationship with the woman in the past to be used as a defence. So the fact that she said yes at some point in the past was relevant to her decision today. The House of Lords effectively told all women, “Hey, if you’re think you might not want to have sex with a man, at any point in the future, ever, then you must never say yes. Saying yes at any point will allow him to assume you’re saying yes whenever he wants you. Your consent last week has an impact on our consent today and next month…”
Rape is something that is done to a woman (sometimes a man, mostly a woman). The raped are not responsible for being raped any more than the burgled are responsible for being burgled, the mugged are responsible for being mugged, the defrauded are responsible for being defrauded, etc. Yet the discourse of rape is such that one would be forgiven for believing that it is, or at best that the majority of people believe it is.
The media is, to a large degree, responsible for peddling this delusion. They never question it, only promote it. They could promote the idea that men shouldn’t rape, but instead they promote the idea that women should be responsible for not being raped.
Having read the FAQ page for COyou2, and having seen the side pannel of on of their pages advertising COyou2 Petz, I am almost certain this is supposed to be a spoof or satirical website, possibly even some kind of study in how amazingly stupid people can be.
I am unsure if there is actually a product to be bought. I am a little wary of providing my name and e-mail details. After all, I’d not sign a book which had “signitories of this book are morons” at the top of the page, and that does seem to be the implication of ordering a catalogue.
“The fact is that big businesses simply can’t afford to make the same sacrifices we can as individuals. We rely on them to make the huge profits that keep our economies alive. [...] BHP recently committed 0.2 per cent of their net annual profit to reduce its emissions and now reimburses its staff for half the cost of energy-efficient light bulbs in their home!” – FAQ page for COyou2
I don’t rely on them to make huge profits, and neither does anyone else. Some people may rely on them to make reasonable, sustained profits, but huge profits are what they want, not what is relied on. It’s also not desireable. Huge profits means huge exploitation. Reasonable profits imply reasonable exploitation, sure, and I’m not supporting that, simply pointing out that some people think it’s good.
I personally don’t think that 0.2% of their profits being devoted to reducing emissions is actually worthy of an exclamation mark. I think it’s worthy of derission and ridicule for being a pathetic and lousy amount. 0.2% is possibly as low a figure as they could possibly make it while still having the money actually buy anything at all. 0.2% is possibly even a government mandated amount.
Like beauracracies, the economy started as a tool for the use of people but has expanded to become something people are supposed to be enslaved to. We can’t possibly ask companies to not exploit people, because of the economy. The economy is more important than those people. We can’t possibly ask companies to take realistic, decisive, sustained action to prevent anything, because it might be bad for the economy. The economy is more important than animals or humans or the planet we live on. We can’t do anything to change anything if the change has even the slightest negative impact on the economy, because the economy is too important for us to risk anything happening to it. The Earth, on the other hand, that can be sacreficed at every turn, at ever step, because it’s not the economy and we don’t rely on it. Right? … Right?
Mankind lived for hundreds of thousands of years without economies. We wouldn’t last a year without the biosphere that supports us. But, maybe the economy is like Pandora’s box and can’t possibly be closed? Once it’s there it’s too important to lose? Once we have an economy, we no longer need biodiversity in our biosphere, because the economy replaces it?
Nope, the economy should be a tool. We should treat it as something to serve us, not something we must serve. It should have always been setup as such, but for some reason[1], we’re slaves to it and that is the way it is designed. The discourse of our society doesn’t even acknowledge the possibility that the economy is a tool. The economy is alive and hungry, and must be fed. It only eats lives, they’re cheap, right?
–
[1] A reason that’s not too hard to work out, honestly. Power, those with it wanting to keep it.
So, I recently got directed to this site. Basicly it’s a ‘new innovation’ aimed at one of the ‘major emitters’ of CO2. Breathing!
As the site hypes, each of us are responsible for approximately 1 kg of CO2 per day, 0.38 tons a year! Multiplied by 6.7 billion, the site tells us, and you have a lot of CO2 being emitted. Now, I’m all for population reduction, as anyone who has read my blog will no doubt be aware. However, saying we need to be responsible for capturing our own breath with some gadget is just ludicrous.
1 kg of CO2 per day to continue to exist? I think we can afford that one, thanks. 700,000+ kg of CO2 from one company’s unhealthy snack foods per day?[1] That we can live without. The CO2 emitted by short-haul flights we can live without. The CO2 emitted by long distance commuters we can live without. Breathing is actually vital.
COyou2’s little device is such a waste of effort that I can’t imagine it being for real. I looked at the site and my first thoughts were “Oh, satire, how cute.” However, some people seem to be taking it seriously, so I’m worried that they’re actually a real company selling actual products to retards. Even if one were to accept that the CO2 from breathing were a problem worthy of innovation, this device doesn’t look comfortable. It would be a gadget which you might use once or twice and then just leave alone. Almost certainly causing a net increase in CO2 emissions.
I think one of the major gripes I have with the site is the contained implication that governments and business are doing all they possibly can, so much so that your pesky breathing is now a big enough contribution to CO2 emissions that you’re irresponsible for not capturing your own CO2. As if any part of that were even skirting the truth, or could even see truth with a high powered telescope.
–
[1] Walkers’ crisps, a UK based company, sells over 10 million bags of crisps per day, each bag responsible for twice its weight in CO2 emissions.
Legal aid cases have never actually been the plum cases. A barrister has, for a very long time, been able to get substantially more money from doing jobs other than legal aid jobs, because of restrictions placed on the pay awards by the government. However, a lot of them saw the benefit of doing legal aid work and so did it alongside their ordinary practice since it is essential in our legal system that people should have adequate representation in court in order to defend themselves.
Laws as so complicated, the interactions between laws especially, that trained legal assistance is necessary in almost all legal matters. Because they are necessary and their job difficult to get into, they are able to charge a premium. Add to that the Labour government’s ability to pass laws like they are going out of fashion and you have a situation where more laws are on the books so more offences are being committed and so more representation is needed. The legal aid pool doesn’t grow in a concurrent way and so less money is available each year for each case.
Barristers operate a ‘cab rank’ principle, the first barrister available takes the case. They can only turn down a case if the fee is not sufficient for the task they are being asked to perform (or if it contradics their moral or ethical code). In a recent case that was abandoned because no barrister would take it the reason was because, once they’d added up the number of hours they would have had to put into the case and divided it by the “generous” amount they were offered for the legal aid job, they were expected to do the work at a rate of around £4 an hour, less than minimum wage.
Legal aid is vital. Cutting it is like admitting we don’t actually give a damn about justice (I know we don’t, but lets not be so brazen about admitting it, please?) or the right to a fair trial. We have trial by media anyway. There’s no smoke without fire! We cry foul when people are found not guilty because we are so certain they were, the papers and news told us they were guilty, so they must have been.
I’m sure the CEOs of major corporations would be thrilled if you said to them, “Right, while you make this product, rather than being paid 400 times the average wage of your workers in the UK (3000 times the wages you pay in a lot of the poorest countries), how about you get paid the same?”
As an aside, is the job a CEO does really worth 400 times that of the people on the bottom of the ladder? Really? If the CEO took the day off, would that impact the state of the company the same way as 400 average workers taking the day off would? No, so he’s not adding the same level of value as 400 workers. If the CEO stopped doing his job, would it take 400 standard workers to replace him? No, so he’s not doing a job so big he would need to be replaced that much. If he decided to work an extra day’s worth of work, does the companies profits sky rocket? No, so he’s not actually adding much value at all. It strikes me that CEOs have managed to create this club where they get astonishing levels of pay for a level of work that isn’t concurrent with the value they add to the company. If CEOs have to fire a handful of people to cut costs they should be made to take a 5% pay cut as well. In many big companies that 5% pay cut would be the same as getting rid of 20 people. There is nothing a CEO, a footballer, an F1 driver, etc does that is worth that level of money.
