to drshow@wamu.org
Putting off discussion of elimination of nuclear weapons
This is a nod to Israel. If we are ever going to talk about eliminating nuclear weapons, we will need to have honesty and transparency about who actually has weapons already.
Because they prefer to keep this question of whether they have nuclear weapons as an official secret, any conversation among nations about intentions and actions regarding abolition of nuclear weapons might be seen by participants and observers as a sham. So, we see no conversation, rather than direct unwanted attention to Israeli policy.
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
To a Healthy and Peaceful Life
Is there a direct relationship between people's willingness to treat beings as things, as when we put flesh on a plate (phycho-pathology) and the tendency toward decay of the body (physiological pathology).
And what relation is there between the inclination to eat animals on the one hand and the tendency to see natural resources both as something scarce that must be grabbed or controlled and at the same time something to be squandered?
When someone wants to go to war, they will turn their attention to recruiting and exhorting youth (subjects of their own lives) into fodder for cannon (objects or cogs in a machine) for example.
According to Socrates, we cannot live a peaceful and healthy life if we pursue a desire to eat animals. The environmental damage, adverse impact on our health and the resulting scarcity of resources and impulse to war to get our neighbors' pasture (oil) will prevent it.
We are eating precariously high on the food chain:
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com/2011/06/diet-choice-is-moral-choice.html
A Heart for Cheney
A comment on the web about a famous and influential warmonger who had surgery recently:
Thomas Hatch (Seen_It_All) wrote: < br />
It was 'most recommended', this comment.
Thomas Hatch (Seen_It_All) wrote: < br />
Why now give a heart to a man who has managed to live for 71 years without one? Mon Mar 26 2012 05:03:27 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
It was 'most recommended', this comment.
Re: Philippe Van Parijs - Basic Income
To BBC Business News on Facebook:
A team of scientists, Robert Costanza, et al -- in 1997, estimated the value of natural resource wealth at about $33 trillion per year. If we were to charge fees to those who take natural resources or put pollution, then share the proceeds of these fees equally, this estimate suggests that each person might receive about $600 per month. Of course, this estimate was an estimate only. Some things were left out of the calculus because they were just too hard to put a number on. And we might decide to NOT give the money for personal use only. We might eliminate or significantly reduce other taxes, but require each citizen to put a portion of their share of the proceeds from environmental impact fees toward public programs that they deem (and that a large fraction of other citizens believe) are worthy of public support. It is likely that abusive police forces or inadequate schools would NOT qualify to receive funds under such a system, since relatively few people would say that they promote the public interest. In this way, we could respect PUBLIC property rights (equal sharing of natural wealth) along with private property rights, and thereby end extreme poverty in the world AND manage environmental impacts in the most efficient and fair way.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/
A team of scientists, Robert Costanza, et al -- in 1997, estimated the value of natural resource wealth at about $33 trillion per year. If we were to charge fees to those who take natural resources or put pollution, then share the proceeds of these fees equally, this estimate suggests that each person might receive about $600 per month. Of course, this estimate was an estimate only. Some things were left out of the calculus because they were just too hard to put a number on. And we might decide to NOT give the money for personal use only. We might eliminate or significantly reduce other taxes, but require each citizen to put a portion of their share of the proceeds from environmental impact fees toward public programs that they deem (and that a large fraction of other citizens believe) are worthy of public support. It is likely that abusive police forces or inadequate schools would NOT qualify to receive funds under such a system, since relatively few people would say that they promote the public interest. In this way, we could respect PUBLIC property rights (equal sharing of natural wealth) along with private property rights, and thereby end extreme poverty in the world AND manage environmental impacts in the most efficient and fair way.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Squandering Natural Resources Has Consequences
Comment to Meet the Press on Facebook:
The same rock formations that hold natural gas and oil also trap helium. Unlike fossil fuels, there are NO substitutes for helium. When the reserves are gone, we will have to do without. This will impact our modern economy in ways that most people are completely unaware of. (I read that NASA uses large quantities of helium, but makes no effort to recycle it.)
Rapid depletion of oil and natural gas reserves, through fracking, not only pollutes groundwater and makes transition to alternatives more difficult, it also destroys the geologic formations that have held the gas for so long. Why is there no public discussion about whether and by how much we should slow down our depletion of these limited resources, for the sake of future generations? A rational policy would assess fees to industry when they extract resources and put pollution. Fees attached to extraction of natural gas should be higher for those fields that have higher helium content.
All fee proceeds should be shared equally among all people.
I really would like to know, why are these issues and ideas not discussed by the news media? Squandering natural resources has consequences. Future generations (along with younger members of today's society) will suffer as our fossil fuel-based civilization collapses. Or we avert the collapse by developing a respect of PUBLIC property rights and by accounting for economic externalities.
We can solve the major problems facing our civilization. We will have to talk about the systemic flaws underlying those problems. Are we willing to engage in a public discourse about systemic flaws and their solution?
Equal sharing of natural wealth makes the world's biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
The same rock formations that hold natural gas and oil also trap helium. Unlike fossil fuels, there are NO substitutes for helium. When the reserves are gone, we will have to do without. This will impact our modern economy in ways that most people are completely unaware of. (I read that NASA uses large quantities of helium, but makes no effort to recycle it.)
Rapid depletion of oil and natural gas reserves, through fracking, not only pollutes groundwater and makes transition to alternatives more difficult, it also destroys the geologic formations that have held the gas for so long. Why is there no public discussion about whether and by how much we should slow down our depletion of these limited resources, for the sake of future generations? A rational policy would assess fees to industry when they extract resources and put pollution. Fees attached to extraction of natural gas should be higher for those fields that have higher helium content.
All fee proceeds should be shared equally among all people.
I really would like to know, why are these issues and ideas not discussed by the news media? Squandering natural resources has consequences. Future generations (along with younger members of today's society) will suffer as our fossil fuel-based civilization collapses. Or we avert the collapse by developing a respect of PUBLIC property rights and by accounting for economic externalities.
We can solve the major problems facing our civilization. We will have to talk about the systemic flaws underlying those problems. Are we willing to engage in a public discourse about systemic flaws and their solution?
Equal sharing of natural wealth makes the world's biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Faster drilling today means more disruption and hardship tomorrow
Should the program be called "Some Things Considered"?
There's no mention on NPR of the fact that faster drilling for oil today means faster depletion of fossil fuel reserves. This will mean a more difficult transition when the wells finally run dry or become so unproductive that extraction is prohibitively expensive.
Why is there no mention of the fact (this is not opinion, but fact) that more rapid depletion of natural resources today means a more difficult life for our children and their offspring in years to come?
How can this essential fact be deemed not relevant to the public discourse?
We are living in an UN-sustainable civilization. Public policy that reduces the rate of taking of natural resources would tend to promote stability over the long term.
A truly democratic society would adopt policies that ensure that resources are not depleted at rates that exceed what most people would say are acceptable. A truly democratic society would not allow levels of pollution to exceed what most people say is acceptable
There are proposals that promise a sustainable civilization where abject poverty is abolished. They involve an equal sharing of natural wealth. Why are they not mentioned at all?
A sustainable and just civilization:
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 18:37:42 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
There's no mention on NPR of the fact that faster drilling for oil today means faster depletion of fossil fuel reserves. This will mean a more difficult transition when the wells finally run dry or become so unproductive that extraction is prohibitively expensive.
Why is there no mention of the fact (this is not opinion, but fact) that more rapid depletion of natural resources today means a more difficult life for our children and their offspring in years to come?
How can this essential fact be deemed not relevant to the public discourse?
We are living in an UN-sustainable civilization. Public policy that reduces the rate of taking of natural resources would tend to promote stability over the long term.
A truly democratic society would adopt policies that ensure that resources are not depleted at rates that exceed what most people would say are acceptable. A truly democratic society would not allow levels of pollution to exceed what most people say is acceptable
There are proposals that promise a sustainable civilization where abject poverty is abolished. They involve an equal sharing of natural wealth. Why are they not mentioned at all?
A sustainable and just civilization:
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 18:37:42 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Address problems we must face together
Seeking six words about race -- Talk of the Nation
*Race is a culturally constructed concept.*
Would we be better off if we were to see ourselves as members of the human community and larger community of life, rather than as members of one or another socially constructed racial category?
This is not to deny the extra burden carried by those with dark skin in USA.
Would it be better for race relations if we were to spend more time talking about the challenges that face the entire human community AND possible solutions.
Re possible solutions, we could END extreme poverty throughout the world AND control environmental impacts and manage natural resource wealth for a sustainable civilization if we resolve to respect PUBLIC property rights along with private property rights. (Natural resource wealth should be shared equally.)
NPR and other mainstream news organizations do not mention public property rights as it relates to natural resource wealth. Nor do they mention that we are living in an unsustainable civilization.
How might addressing problems that we face as a human community reduce tensions related to our various group identities.
How might reducing disparity of wealth reduce racial tensions?
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 15:16:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
*Race is a culturally constructed concept.*
Would we be better off if we were to see ourselves as members of the human community and larger community of life, rather than as members of one or another socially constructed racial category?
This is not to deny the extra burden carried by those with dark skin in USA.
Would it be better for race relations if we were to spend more time talking about the challenges that face the entire human community AND possible solutions.
Re possible solutions, we could END extreme poverty throughout the world AND control environmental impacts and manage natural resource wealth for a sustainable civilization if we resolve to respect PUBLIC property rights along with private property rights. (Natural resource wealth should be shared equally.)
NPR and other mainstream news organizations do not mention public property rights as it relates to natural resource wealth. Nor do they mention that we are living in an unsustainable civilization.
How might addressing problems that we face as a human community reduce tensions related to our various group identities.
How might reducing disparity of wealth reduce racial tensions?
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 15:16:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)