An election is coming, so might as well start early.
People often confound voting with betting. They want to back the winner. But no, this is not what is happening. You are doing it to express your tiny part of the popular will. Under First Past the Post (the british electoral system) it is mainly just an expression: only in marginal seats does the vote make a difference to the outcome. Nothing changes in safe seats. For safe seats, read rotten boroughs.
So the question is - are you in a safe seat or a marginal? If in a marginal, you may wish to vote against Labour because of Blair, and against the Tories because they are Tories. If perchance you have a LibDem or Scots or Welsh nationalist candidate (in Scotland or Wales respectively, of course) who is in a position to win, you may be able to help swing things.
But - BUT - if you are in a safe seat, nothing you or anyone does is going to change things. So then you can vote Green because of the total rightness of their thinking vis a vis human survival.
No matter who you vote for, the Gpovernment always gets in. So vote Green - they never get in.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Friday, February 04, 2005
Pascal's World Warming Wager
Climate warming sceptics everywhere! Let us try applying Pascal's wager to the climate warming argument.
If you are right, but we go flat out to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, we will conserve fossil fuel stocks, and so have a far less abrupt fossil fuel run down (Peak Oil, aka the Big Rollover as was) ; we will create vast areas of new forest in places that are desert at present; acid rain will diminish; hundreds of new technologies will be invented and developed; hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the green sector of the economy will be created world wide; the quality of life will increase immeasurably as the frantic rush slows down; road traffic will ease and with it road accidents; health will increase; the gap between rich and poor will begin to lessen; craftsmanship in wood and the use of wood as a structural and aesthetic material will increase; and so on and so forth.
There will be losers, naturally, but they will be people of the calibre of oil company executives, and they will be able to afford to retire anyway. All this will take place, but because you and the handful of sceptics are right, climate will not collapse, and so it will be very lovely indeed, all round.
Now what if you are wrong, and the overwhelming majority of scientists, together with the green movement is right, but policy continues to be dictated by vested interests in the oil industry, and we continue business as usual?
If you are right, but we go flat out to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, we will conserve fossil fuel stocks, and so have a far less abrupt fossil fuel run down (Peak Oil, aka the Big Rollover as was) ; we will create vast areas of new forest in places that are desert at present; acid rain will diminish; hundreds of new technologies will be invented and developed; hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the green sector of the economy will be created world wide; the quality of life will increase immeasurably as the frantic rush slows down; road traffic will ease and with it road accidents; health will increase; the gap between rich and poor will begin to lessen; craftsmanship in wood and the use of wood as a structural and aesthetic material will increase; and so on and so forth.
There will be losers, naturally, but they will be people of the calibre of oil company executives, and they will be able to afford to retire anyway. All this will take place, but because you and the handful of sceptics are right, climate will not collapse, and so it will be very lovely indeed, all round.
Now what if you are wrong, and the overwhelming majority of scientists, together with the green movement is right, but policy continues to be dictated by vested interests in the oil industry, and we continue business as usual?
If I set the consequences out in detail, you will say I am being hysterical, so I will confine myself to saying that it will not be very nice at all.
So, according to Pascal's wager, the best bet for humanity is to ignore Bush and go with the scientists and the greens. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Did animals sense Tsunami was coming?
Did animals sense Tsunami was coming? with a few nice anecdotes on the Compassion in World Farming site. CIWF are nice and sensible.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Not wise, not rational, definitely not spiritual
OK, I admit it; I am back with the terrorism debate. But hey, look (as the Bliar would say) it is a bit important. Not as important as global warming sure, but it needs debating. We are here, and Alain has asked me to incorporate the Islamic threat into my model of terrorism as a response to domination by a foreign group.
Alain, I can agree with you that Osama bin Laden and his cadres are labouring under the mistaken belief that they can and must bring about a situation where Islam is the one and only world religion, and that they can and must use terrorist means to do it.
Where we differ is in the degree of the threat and the means necessary to counter it. To you, the threat is apocalyptic, and (correct me if I am wrong) the so-called War on Terror is the necessary response. To the majority here, the threat exists, and is one that we should defend ourselves against by a variety of means, primarily political, but it is not an apocalyptic threat. Yes, 9/11 was a spectacular and cruel act, but then so was the "shock and awe" attack on Iraq, and the Americans have surely got their revenge for the 3,000 they lost. Proportionally they have killed a far greater percentage of the Afghan and Iraqi population than the American nation lost on 9/11.
Yes, terrorism is not at all desirable, but we in the UK, (IRA) and other places (Germany in the 70's with the RAF) have lived with it and through it without getting hysterical about it. Listen: terrorism passes. Things change. Osama is not a well man. He will die, maybe soon. Maybe he is already dead. Or he might even be captured one day, who knows? Al-Qaeda may be in the process of dissolving - they may strike again, but they will pass into history one day. It is hard to sustain an intense campaign for long. I have an impression that wars and conflicts often resolve themselves within a generation.
So most of us do not share the apocalyptic vision that you, Daniel Pipes and George Bush are experiencing. But in all the uncertainty, we share one certainty, and it is this: that the War on Terror is pouring oil onto the fires that burn in the hearts of disaffected Muslim youth. It is making terrorism worse, not better. George Bush and the neo-cons are the best recruiting sergeant that Osama bin Laden could hope for, just as the existence of Stalin helped Hitler to rise to power in Germany.
I have to say that in my opinion, and that of the majority of the people of this world, War on Terror is most certainly not the policy of a wise, rational and spiritual person. I suspect that you will disagree, because, sad to say, we have a difference of belief systems here, not a difference in reasoning."
So there we have it. The Conference is in Madrid on March 11th. We must look out for it in the papers.
Alain, I can agree with you that Osama bin Laden and his cadres are labouring under the mistaken belief that they can and must bring about a situation where Islam is the one and only world religion, and that they can and must use terrorist means to do it.
Where we differ is in the degree of the threat and the means necessary to counter it. To you, the threat is apocalyptic, and (correct me if I am wrong) the so-called War on Terror is the necessary response. To the majority here, the threat exists, and is one that we should defend ourselves against by a variety of means, primarily political, but it is not an apocalyptic threat. Yes, 9/11 was a spectacular and cruel act, but then so was the "shock and awe" attack on Iraq, and the Americans have surely got their revenge for the 3,000 they lost. Proportionally they have killed a far greater percentage of the Afghan and Iraqi population than the American nation lost on 9/11.
Yes, terrorism is not at all desirable, but we in the UK, (IRA) and other places (Germany in the 70's with the RAF) have lived with it and through it without getting hysterical about it. Listen: terrorism passes. Things change. Osama is not a well man. He will die, maybe soon. Maybe he is already dead. Or he might even be captured one day, who knows? Al-Qaeda may be in the process of dissolving - they may strike again, but they will pass into history one day. It is hard to sustain an intense campaign for long. I have an impression that wars and conflicts often resolve themselves within a generation.
So most of us do not share the apocalyptic vision that you, Daniel Pipes and George Bush are experiencing. But in all the uncertainty, we share one certainty, and it is this: that the War on Terror is pouring oil onto the fires that burn in the hearts of disaffected Muslim youth. It is making terrorism worse, not better. George Bush and the neo-cons are the best recruiting sergeant that Osama bin Laden could hope for, just as the existence of Stalin helped Hitler to rise to power in Germany.
I have to say that in my opinion, and that of the majority of the people of this world, War on Terror is most certainly not the policy of a wise, rational and spiritual person. I suspect that you will disagree, because, sad to say, we have a difference of belief systems here, not a difference in reasoning."
So there we have it. The Conference is in Madrid on March 11th. We must look out for it in the papers.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Proportional Representation in Iraq poll shock
To Letters Editor, the Guardian
I was astounded to note that the Iraqi elections, although welcome, are to have seats in the national assembly allocated on the basis of the share of the vote won by each party. Surely they realise that this kind of nonsense cannot create the strong government needed in the Middle East? Surely they realise that it will leave the smaller parties in power for ever? What was Tony Blair up to, letting that one through?
[Exit stage left, pursued by a blair]
I was astounded to note that the Iraqi elections, although welcome, are to have seats in the national assembly allocated on the basis of the share of the vote won by each party. Surely they realise that this kind of nonsense cannot create the strong government needed in the Middle East? Surely they realise that it will leave the smaller parties in power for ever? What was Tony Blair up to, letting that one through?
[Exit stage left, pursued by a blair]
Monday, January 31, 2005
7 reasons for committees to do nothing
Today is the day to enumerate the various ways which committees can say No to new ideas.
1 That has been done before.
2 That has never been done before.
3 That idea will not address a separate issue which it was not supposed to address in the first place. (Never mind the dog poo, what about the litter).
4 Vandals will destroy that idea if it were ever to make it into reality.
5 People might hurt themselves on it, and sue us.
6 It would cost too much.
7 That would be the thin end of the wedge.
A fairly complete list, but there is always the brilliant exception. Who would have thought up the reason to not put in place an Indian Ocean tsunami warning system on the grounds that there had not been a big earthquake in the region for a very long time? The whole point of earthquakes is that if you have not had one for a very long time, the next one that comes along will be a biggie.
And that was a committee of earthquake experts...
Millions could be saved from the budget of the Civil Service if they just wrote 1/2/6 on the letters of people who write in with suggestions for Government to change its ways.
1 That has been done before.
2 That has never been done before.
3 That idea will not address a separate issue which it was not supposed to address in the first place. (Never mind the dog poo, what about the litter).
4 Vandals will destroy that idea if it were ever to make it into reality.
5 People might hurt themselves on it, and sue us.
6 It would cost too much.
7 That would be the thin end of the wedge.
A fairly complete list, but there is always the brilliant exception. Who would have thought up the reason to not put in place an Indian Ocean tsunami warning system on the grounds that there had not been a big earthquake in the region for a very long time? The whole point of earthquakes is that if you have not had one for a very long time, the next one that comes along will be a biggie.
And that was a committee of earthquake experts...
Millions could be saved from the budget of the Civil Service if they just wrote 1/2/6 on the letters of people who write in with suggestions for Government to change its ways.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Might get bored with terrorism
No posts for 2 days, not that I haven't been busy, but everything is happening over on the openDemocracy terrorism forum. I've not copied them all over here as I thought you might get bored with terrorism debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
