Re: Cut off funds to NASA

On Feb 24, 1:31 pm, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris.B wrote:

China and India
were not responsible for the present CO2 levels. The rich industrial
nations (who were also responsible for the disastrous colonisation and
slave trade which set back poor countries by centuries as well as
robbing them of their natural resources and national treasures)  were
almost entirely responsible for the present situation. Surely it
behoves those who caused the problem to monitor, confirm and try to
fix the problems they themselves have caused.?  That China and India
(and others) should finally be enjoying their emancipation into the
modern era is merely a matter of unfortunate timing. If the western
world were honest they would calculate the CO2 output from the
emerging nation's products which were manufactured for the rich
nations and include this measure in their own CO2 debt to the world's
survival.

There are not really any _logic fallacies_ in this. I might disagree
with it, but for other reasons.

China is a country ruled by a dictatorial regime, one which occupies
Tibet, which occupies the national homeland of the Uighur people, and
which threatens aggression against Taiwan. As such, it is the enemy of
every free man, and thus we don't owe it any favors.

As for the rest of the poor world, presumably its carbon dioxide
production will fall as it attempts to outbid the rich world for
diminishing oil supplies. If the answer to global warming is for
everyone to consume less, those with wealth and power _will_ be better
able to resist the trend.

One might deplore this from an ethical and moral point of view, but
the only "plan" I can see that would prevent it would be for the poor
world to overwhelm the rich world with military force. Since the rich
world has things like democracy, the rule of law, equality for women,
and so on, while in general the poor world is dominated by one or
another dictator, and is filled with strife along religious and ethnic
divisions, that would be a big step backwards for humanity.

I want the poverty of the poor world to end - but by a technological
solution (i.e., nuclear power) so that while the poor do become rich,
they do so in a world in which the Western nations remain firmly in
control.

The rich nations have dragged their feet on CO2 reduction. They have
made false promises and continued to belch pollution from their
blackened chimneys and exhausts.

Knowing how Canada has progressed towards achieving the Kyoto
emissions targets, I can't claim even a factual error here, let alone
a logical fallacy.

Those who torture
and murder the innocent people in the own nations have their wages
paid directly by the man standing at the petrol pump. Or by the man
who leaves a light on.

Except for the fact that *most* of the repressive regimes in the Third
World are *not* oil-producing nations, this would merely be
emotionalistic rhetoric. And appealing to emotion in good causes has a
long history.

You are personally paying for Israel's atrocities.

This, of course, is a factual error that is simply outside the park
and beyond the pale. He should wipe his fingers out with soap for
typing such things.

Global warming
is already causing massive problems around the globe. Countless
millions are suffering yet are denied access to the same luxuries you
take completely for granted. They cannot flee in their 4 x 4s to their
summer houses in the hills to escape the flooding, failed harvests,
their refugee status or their evil dictators.

It's unclear, or at least unproven, that global warming has yet added
to the suffering of the world's poor masses. We can't yet say which
typhoon or which drought wouldn't have happened if not for global
warming. But this is correctly why global warming *will* eventually
cause massive human suffering, because people can't migrate to where
their knowledge of how to produce food remains applicable.

The world does not owe
the rich nations anything. They have filled themselves to bursting
already. Always by exploiting others less fortunate or too weak to
fight for their rights. In doing so the rich nations alone have
destroyed our pristine earth and our reputations.

From the way the poor people of the poor countries behave to their
ethnic minorities, it's not a case of them being too nice to do the
same to us in most cases.

If global warming did not exist it is still a wake up call to the
human race. We can and should be doing much better than this.
Inequality is an evil fuelled by oil and stolen natural resources.
(including human labour)

It is a terrible thing that some people are so poor. If the cure is
making everyone poor, so that the poor can be *slightly less poor*,
though, pardon me for being less than enthusiastic. This is why I root
for technical solutions. They have a fighting chance of really
happening. If the poor try to overthrow the rich, in the fight more
wealth will be destroyed than can be stolen.

Overpopulation is a defence against old age
by those who do not enjoy social or health security.

The "demographic transition" is a well-known phenomenon.

War is waged only
by those who have no mandate from their own people.

Generally true. For example, Hitler was a demagogue who dishonestly
seized power; he was democratically elected as Chancellor, but he
illegally made himself Fuhrer.

Only the detested
need weapons of mass destruction and vast armies to protect themselves
from those they have taught to hate them.

Now, that is a fallacy. Our nuclear arsenals were built in the Cold
War to protect against rich Russia, not poor India or poor Africa or
poor South America.

There are always much
cheaper ways to pay for peace, real respect and real security at home
and abroad.  These include total honesty in government and
administration. Providing proper education according to ability,
health care, support and social security to those who cannot afford it
themselves. Bullies with demands for pocket money in return for
services rendered need not apply. It's been done to death and everyone
knows it. That's why the world is as badly broken as it is. Poverty is
an obscenity for which everybody in the world pays very dearly. It
doesn't have to be like this.

The fallacy in this is simply the degree to which the poor outnumber
the rich. Pretty much everyone being poor with only a few being rich
has been the normal condition of humanity over virtually all of
history.

Finally, in the "rich countries", the ordinary working people are able
to live comfortably.

*And that isn't even as true now as it was back in the early 1960s.*

Good luck trying to persuade the ordinary working masses of the rich
countries to accept a transfer of *their* wealth to the poor of the
world. Because the few who are rich in comparison to them are *not*
rich enough for their wealth to make a difference to the poor of the
world. That's why the government has to tax the middle-class, not just
the rich.

And there's one other little problem.

Giving the poor people of the world electronic toys like we have is
probably doable. Look at the "One Laptop Per Child" program. But the
problem isn't a lack of toys, it's a lack of *food*.

Persuading the people of the rich world to give up their SUVs is going
to be hard enough, although I could agree in principle with that.
Persuading them to put a lot less meat in their diet - that's the only
way to increase net world agricultural production, so as to be able to
feed more people - will be MUCH harder.

So we're not talking about a world where our governments escape from
the control of a few greedy rich businessmen, and start doing what the
ordinary people want them to. We're talking about a world in which the
ordinary people of the U.S. and Canada and Australia are helpless at
the point of guns pointed at them by the poor world. Excuse me if I
don't root for this.

Yes, let's have a world with less poverty and inequality. But to
really *get there from here*, the road doesn't lie through a big war
where some poor country becomes the master of the world. That just
creates inequality with new masters, less enlightened and democratic,
and less likely to contribute to *technological progress*, than the
rich countries we have now.

I'm always stunned when I realize people can actually believe this kind of
nonsense.  The number of logic fallacies is too hard to calculate.

People can actually believe the truth.

It is true -

we're pretty rich,

a lot of other people are really poor,

this isn't fair,

and during the Victorian Era, before, and for a while after, the rich
countries of the world did take unfair advantage of the poor countries
of the world in various ways, adding to their wealth.

All this is perfectly true.

What is false, and is harder to see as false, because it's apparently
"bad form", or inconsiderate, to really mention it, is that for the
rich countries of the world to commit suicide out of guilt wouldn't
really do anyone any favors.

But if the rich countries of the world are just going to keep on
burning oil, until they collapse into destruction anyways, then, yes,
they have no reason for continuing on at the cost of more misery for
the poor countries. Convert to nuclear power, which we have now, and
know to work - and develop new energy sources. Real ones that will
provide massive amounts of energy, not just nice fluffy ones that
don't really address humanity's needs.

With enough energy, you could turn Jupiter into an awful lot of
fertilizer. But the Oort cloud is much easier to get at.

John Savard
.

Relevant Pages

  • Poor Nations to Bear Brunt as World Warms
    ... Poor Nations to Bear Brunt as World Warms ... The world's richest countries, which have contributed by far the most ... a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...
    (soc.culture.indian)
  • Re: Obama: The Anti-Bling: From Riches to Rags
    ... cause fear and trembling among the rulers of nations. ... Be afraid, rich and powerful. ... As Kwame Ture once said, "a man is poor for one ... look at the bad economy right now. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Thai poor cant pay rich prices to save their lives? tough sh*t, hints Minister Chaiya
    ... which is NOT the case for the rich or those ... Cutting edge pharmaceuticals only exist because the drug companies ... The poor should get the drugs. ... Papua Niugini or Angola or Zambia or the truly poor countries that are ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Hand that destroys the Garden - II
    ... nations is common place. ... Weapons of destructions have been sold to some very poor nations at ... developed countries ... far more poor to tolerate further exploitation have virtually shown ...
    (soc.culture.pakistan)
  • Re: Flat tax proposal
    ... the rich on cruise liners or the rich on wooden rafts and the poor ... those able to keep above the tide breathe and those that don't drown and ... they are just too lazy or mentally anguished to get up in the boat ...
    (sci.econ)