An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

[rebel_1812]

Still I believe a One World Government can only do this.

I usually don't have a problem with people who believe global warming is man made or those who don't.  I do have a problem with the proposed solutions to the global warming problem.  Most of the proposed solutions won't help in the least bit even if global warming is man made.  Seems obvious that if carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is the problem then the solution is to change our energy source to hydrogen, solar or nuclear sources.

Instead the proposed solutions are things like mandatory changing our light bulbs to energy efficient ones(just passed here in Canada).  That in no way solves the problem.  Less fossil fuels may be burned, but that just means it will be burned the next day.  If the energy source is the problem efficiency will not be the solution, it will just prolong things.

Moreover, carbon credits/taxes also will not solve the problem since its aim is also to reduce the amount of energy we use.  But the amount of energy use isn't the problem its the way you use it.  If we used a small amount of fossil fuels every year until the supply ran out, versus an extremely high amount over a shorter time span until it ran out the amount of CO2 released would be the same.  Real solutions can't just reduce the energy use, since that CO2 will be released later unless the energy sources are changed.

Which brings me to the next point, what do these so called 'solutions' cost?  Carbon credits/taxes will cost everyone more money, for the poor it will mean you are not allowed to drive cars (or other things that will now be beyond your price point).  Such a cost is not acceptable considering it doesn't even solve the problem.  Same thing with the light bulbs or other energy efficient strategies which take away freedoms and can lead to fines or imprisonment for solutions that don't even address the problem.  Lastly, 'one world government' would cost both sovereignty and  freedom, and it is unclear how this would address the problem of changing energy sources.  If we look at all the problems with governments or regimes throughtout history, one salient fact becomes clear more power makes them worse not better.  One world government would not be a Utopia, as governments or people getting more powerful they inevitably get corrupt.

[Scott]

One world government is a "scary" thing without a goal and a new kind of democracy to guide it. A goal would rule not a man(or woman). With even todays technology/communications we don't need the current form of democracy and with a one world government mankind could truly experiment with freedom without being hampered by borderlines and national economics. The only thing we need is someone with the guts to topple the big money people and bring us into the new era.

Current world economics and political election monies are not necessary in our day. You don't need people to represent us in Washington. The days of the horse and buggy are past us. With todays communications you don't need to elect some bozo to run to Washington and do the opposite of what you elected him/her to do. A new politcal course is ahead.

Well.....it should be ahead  .

Ah, what does it matter? They have it all tied up with their secret weapons. We don't have a chance  .

[rebel_1812]

First off, there was not a rebuttal to my claim that the 'solutions' are not really solutions.  Thus the cost of these 'solutions' harm people and do not help them.  Likewise there was no response to my historical based claim that as the power and size of governments/states has grown so too has corruption, war and in general authoritative evil.  The conclusion of the preceding premises is that a world government would more corrupt and evil then current government and would not address the solution (changing energy sources).  From my argument, it is something bad that should be avoided.  Unless you rephrased what is meant by "one world government"...

Which leads to my next point, i don't properly understand what you mean by one world government.  Perhaps the problem is my humble self, but here is what I can understand by your own words.

One world government is a "scary" thing without a goal and a new kind of democracy to guide it. A goal would rule not a man(or woman).

I assume the goal you had in mind was global warming, which as stated previously only requires a change in energy source to correct (for those that believe it).  However, this goal doesn't 'rule' people.  That I don't understand.  If it is this purpose that guides this Leviathan, then that purpose would rule over people indirectly threw that Leviathan.  Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.

You don't need people to represent us in Washington. The days of the horse and buggy are past us. With todays communications you don't need to elect some bozo to run to Washington and do the opposite of what you elected him/her to do.

every government or authority has people running it.  The opposite is anarchy, which isn't that bad of a thing; but is the opposite of a government.  I'm sure my understand of this is probably wrong, if there is no people running it, then it is anarchy, and if there are it must be in a different role then currently defined. 

 Of this much I'm sure, so long as there are people and they have access to kind of power a world government would provide; they would soon become corrupt.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  All those 'big money people' will surely try to influence those powerful few as well.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but my contentions seem to be remain inviolate, global warming solutions do not address the real problem, which is energy sources; but they do cause real harms in peoples lives like the tremendous loss of freedom a "one world government" would entail.

[flackbait]

Isn't discussion fun?

It beats screaming at each other.

How did your class respond to the film?

They seem to agree with it, at least somewhat. Which is weird because I live in one of the most republican towns in Michigan.

[Scott]

First off, there was not a rebuttal to my claim that the 'solutions' are not really solutions.  Thus the cost of these 'solutions' harm people and do not help them.  Likewise there was no response to my historical based claim that as the power and size of governments/states has grown so too has corruption, war and in general authoritative evil.  The conclusion of the preceding premises is that a world government would more corrupt and evil then current government and would not address the solution (changing energy sources).  From my argument, it is something bad that should be avoided.  Unless you rephrased what is meant by "one world government"...

Which leads to my next point, i don't properly understand what you mean by one world government.  Perhaps the problem is my humble self, but here is what I can understand by your own words.

One world government is a "scary" thing without a goal and a new kind of democracy to guide it. A goal would rule not a man(or woman).

I assume the goal you had in mind was global warming, which as stated previously only requires a change in energy source to correct (for those that believe it).  However, this goal doesn't 'rule' people.  That I don't understand.  If it is this purpose that guides this Leviathan, then that purpose would rule over people indirectly threw that Leviathan.  Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.

You don't need people to represent us in Washington. The days of the horse and buggy are past us. With todays communications you don't need to elect some bozo to run to Washington and do the opposite of what you elected him/her to do.

every government or authority has people running it.  The opposite is anarchy, which isn't that bad of a thing; but is the opposite of a government.  I'm sure my understand of this is probably wrong, if there is no people running it, then it is anarchy, and if there are it must be in a different role then currently defined. 

 Of this much I'm sure, so long as there are people and they have access to kind of power a world government would provide; they would soon become corrupt.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  All those 'big money people' will surely try to influence those powerful few as well.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but my contentions seem to be remain inviolate, global warming solutions do not address the real problem, which is energy sources; but they do cause real harms in peoples lives like the tremendous loss of freedom a "one world government" would entail.

To be honest global warming isn't my main concern it's just part of a larger desire for change in the world. The movie mearly touches on one aspect that can be a catalyst in proceeding towards a benevolent one world government. Not the authoritarian type, but rather something unseen as of yet due to individual national interest.

I'm neither here nor there on your argument regarding what is "harmful to people" as your statement only concerns one aspect and level of something much bigger. What I'm trying to say is that you are not wrong about what you or anyone else has said on this off topic film post. From your vantage point you are correct and there is nothing wrong with that. I'll leave this arguement with a karma point for Rebel1812. All points of view are good within themselves. It's when they venture out that they start to dissolve. I'll attempt to write more when I have more time. Don't loose any sleep over it. 

[DodgingGrunge]

They seem to agree with it, at least somewhat. Which is weird because I live in one of the most republican towns in Michigan.

Actually, this might be a good time to clarify some terminology.  "Global Warming", "Greenhouse Effect", and "Pollution" are all different concepts.  It seems that the media, and in turn the public, often use them interchangeably, which is what is fueling a lot of the debate.

Global Warming was a term first coined around 1800 to fit a hypothesis of the inverse proportionality between carbon dioxide and ice levels during the previous ice age.  Since about 1970 the term has been altered to mean a global rise in temperature from one period to the next.  Of course, misuse has made this definition about as affective as the word awesome.  :)

Greenhouse Effect is a naturally occurring (and essential to life on earth!) phenomena wherein a hodgepodge of gaseous material in our atmosphere work (sort of like a convection oven) to increase the temperature of our planet.  If there was no Greenhouse Effect, the average temperature on our planet would be about -13C.  As stated previously, CO₂ makes up a *very* small portion of this (~.38%) and since its influence is logarithmic, increasing its presence is going to have minimal effects on temperature.

Pollution is the discharge of harmful substances into the environment.  Ecologically speaking, an "environment" is a term referring to all of the air, water, minerals, organisms, and external influences that affect a given organism at a particular moment.  In other words, an environment is a limited region of space of which there are *many*.

It seems that a great deal of material in this thread has to do more with local pollutants than any globally-reaching phenomena.  Which is wonderful, because pollution is a problem!  The air quality of densely populated cities (especially those with particularly staid climates like Mexico City) is deplorable.  Scott mentioned how much Manhattan had cleared up following a multi-day reprieve from transportation.  It is estimated that as much as 1/3 of the world's population is without a clean water source.  The state of California says it is not safe to eat most kinds of fish any more.  This is pollution, and this is the problem.

The best way to improve a local environment's condition is through the reduction and reuse of its resources.  Those silly curly lightbulbs that are plaguing Canada are a great example, as is Scott's decision to water his lawn every other day.  Heck, even lower emissions on cars are wonderful.  But as rebel_1812 pointed out, these decisions cost money and it is not always economically feasible to implement such programs.  As such, they may cause more harm than good, especially when the goal is misguidedly aimed at something like "global warming."  The Kyoto treaty, for example, has (at the time of this post), cost the equivalent of $331,055,976,514 USD and, if successful, will decrease global temperatures by .003433174C by the year 2050.

What this boils down to is the importance of self education.  When something piques your interest, like An Inconvenient Truth or a debate on Creation Science, use that as a starting point but take the time (if you can) to ask yourself a few questions and find the answers.  "Is what this person is saying true?"  "Why would this person say this?"  "What other explanations could there be?"  Things along those lines.  It is critical thought that allows mankind to progress in its understanding of the universe and it is blind acceptance that keep us in our places.

[flackbait]

Sorry DodgingGrunge, I probably should have worded this differently.
What I meant was that they were agreeing with Gore's call to action over this subject.
My class is fully aware of the differnces between these terms, although some people might not so it still helps to define these terms for others.

[DodgingGrunge]

Sorry DodgingGrunge, I probably should have worded this differently.

Flackbait:

No worries.  Actually, I understood your statement perfectly and had meant to use it as a transition into the rocky relationship between economy and ecology ("republican [town]", etc).  But I forgot.  Haha.     And instead I expanded on the importance of resource conservation mentioned by Scott and Rebel.  My mind wanders down too many avenues sometimes...

Anyhoo, great comments all around people!  But to really learn something, I think we should all break and watch C.H.U.D.   

[rebel_1812]

agreed

[Scott]

Scott mentioned how much Manhattan had cleared up following a multi-day reprieve from transportation.

 
Not only Manhatten, but the whole country had clear skies that day. Minus dispersed airline fuel trails that cause heavy global dimming.

The best way to improve a local environment's condition is through the reduction and reuse of its resources.  Those silly curly lightbulbs that are plaguing Canada are a great example, as is Scott's decision to water his lawn every other day.  Heck, even lower emissions on cars are wonderful. 

Not only lawns, but industry worldwide can be shut down to let the dust settle on a regular basis. Industry and travel can be shut down for whole weeks at a time with a one world government, except for basic items like food, but even that can be put in check at local levels and storage.

A one world government will happen in time. Cost won't be an issue. Shared work and access must be the way to go. No more motivation by weak monetary impulses that enslave us. A superior man(woman) is one who moves based on and towards a universal goal. A new kind of democracy to lead us and new freedoms to be experienced. A goal would rule and man would only be a facilitator. One elected office working towards one goal. With communication there is no need for large financial fund raising and special interest groups. The goal would rule and only the how would be decided upon.

Global Warming true or untrue is something to be concerned about simply because nobody really knows the cause and effect. That in itself should raise a caution flag to the world. Having said that I will make note that global warming reduction isn't the ultimate goal. It's simply just one of many reasons for change in the world.

Capitalism is a good means by which to take over the world and can be used as a tool, but Capitalism isn't  the goal and it can be discarded at the most convenient time when everything is in order. Capitalism and it's associated rules are only a mechanism to gain personal power. Mankind must find another way to motivate itself. Beyond individual interest. They must find pleasure in the whole.

Capitalism can be used to make things better, but it's the jump in technology that will get us off the planet. Capitalism can hinder this process in the end.

When all people eventually become one flesh, borders come down, monetary motivation ends, and the continuation of human life is advanced by the creative and explored by the courageous then we will all have better meaning in our lives.

The only thing left to deal with is people with bad attitudes. Everything is possible amongst the willing. There is freedom within all things. It's all in how you look at it.

[DodgingGrunge]

Moving onto one world government...

I don't think there is anything in the annals of human history to suggest that this would be possible.  The larger a given population is, the bigger (and more subdivided) the governing body has to be.  If you have three people living on an island, provided they are on good terms with each other, they could feasibly exist without government at all.  But increase that number to, say 50, and you'll begin to have problems, just like you would in a classroom without a teacher.   So then someone becomes a leader.  Things go well until the population reaches several hundred to 1000 and it suddenly becomes conceivable that you may live a lifetime without ever seeing someone.  Then you'll need a small group of people to inform the populace of laws, and then you'll need someone to enforce those laws.  We can keep scaling this up to similar results.

In theory, communism is a beautiful thing.  However do you honestly believe that the world's population is philosophically advanced enough to simply do something because it has a positive influence on another?  It is hard enough to get people to agree to proper educational funding, let alone issues like welfare, healthcare, etc.  And when you remove monetary incentive from your "societal contribution", resentment through comparison will inevitably follow.  As a pre-eminent neurosurgeon, say, I will inevitably come to question the validity of you, the hotdog vendor.  My hours are longer, my work is more important (not to mention there is more at stake).  You, on the other hand, could show up naked and drunk and perform your function adequately.  While some people are humble enough to accept this, most are not.  This basic division of work is beyond money, mind you.  Time is as much a factor.  And when you have no system of socio-economic variance, free time is really all you have.

Another issue that is often forgotten is the concept of "universal comfort".  It is a system, really, just like wealth.  In a system of one government, with a population living communistically, everyone will be equalized, their comfort (and wealth) averaged.  What most people in western society don't really factor is how radically a global average would reduce their own state of living.  Now me, for example.  I have ended the past five fiscal years beneath the United States "poverty line."  The why's are not relevant, though I assure you it is by my own choosing.  But I am quite comfortable.  In fact, in the US, even a homeless person is quite comfortable (I've been this too) compared with someone living in India, say.  If you were to figure the average income per person across the entire world, you'd end up with a figure somewhere in the ballpark of $1000 per year.  A thousand bucks.  Most people in America pay that monthly just for housing!

You see, our livelihood depends solely on the blood and sweat of un(der)developed nations.  If you rewind the clock and look at America around the Industrial Revolution, you'll notice that the living situations of the factory workers were deplorable.  But through unionization and such, their children moved to middle management-type positions and enjoyed an increase in comfort.  But unionization didn't get rid of those underpaying, overworking jobs.  They just moved overseas.  Now, working conditions aside, what this shows is that economically, we (as humans) have not yet learned to exist without the lower classes.  World government and equal opportunities will only hurt us until we remedy this particular dependence.

Now, if at some point we are able to invent robots to carry out every conceivable task (including robot design and robot manufacture and robot maintenance), then a world government might not be so bad.  Of course, we'll need to castrate 99% of the population to avoid breeding ourselves into oblivion, but that's another can of worms.

I could blather on for eternity, but I'll kindly cut this off here. 

[Scott]

I don't think there is anything in the annals of human history to suggest that this would be possible. 

Your correct. There is nothing in the history of the world to compare it to except a microcosim of previous world empires, but they didn't conquer the world. Once all borders are eliminated then there is no major opposition except the terrorist/militia type and that may even be no problem once there are the regulated mass migrations of peoples. Especially when there is an uprising. When you have a one world goverment you can take larger steps towards creating order. Right now goverments have other goverments watching each others actions and nobody dares step on anyones toes.

The larger a given population is, the bigger (and more subdivided) the governing body has to be. If you have three people living on an island, provided they are on good terms with each other, they could feasibly exist without government at all.  But increase that number to, say 50, and you'll begin to have problems, just like you would in a classroom without a teacher.  So then someone becomes a leader.  Things go well until the population reaches several hundred to 1000 and it suddenly becomes conceivable that you may live a lifetime without ever seeing someone.  Then you'll need a small group of people to inform the populace of laws, and then you'll need someone to enforce those laws.  We can keep scaling this up to similar results.

There will be big goverment, but nobody will hold any single position for years at a time. No lifers. Everyone changes positions regulary. You would not have a home as you know it today. Relocation would happen yearly. Mankind would live a more basic life directed towards the goal and the laws that sustain the elected goal.

In theory, communism is a beautiful thing.  However do you honestly believe that the world's population is philosophically advanced enough to simply do something because it has a positive influence on another?

At this moment? No........It will take a religious figure to do this.

It is hard enough to get people to agree to proper educational funding, let alone issues like welfare, healthcare, etc.  And when you remove monetary incentive from your "societal contribution", resentment through comparison will inevitably follow.  As a pre-eminent neurosurgeon, say, I will inevitably come to question the validity of you, the hotdog vendor.  My hours are longer, my work is more important (not to mention there is more at stake).  You, on the other hand, could show up naked and drunk and perform your function adequately.  While some people are humble enough to accept this, most are not.  This basic division of work is beyond money, mind you.  Time is as much a factor.  And when you have no system of socio-economic variance, free time is really all you have.

This is one of the great problems. Who's going to take out the trash and who is going to do the plumbing. All are important. Again we would have the rotation of positions. Everyone will be educated on the basics of human needs so they can work different jobs when their turn comes up. As for neurosurgeons and high end medical care that maybe something of the past that isn't needed anymore with people coming to grips with the natural life cycle again. Meaning we take care of ourselves with preventive medicine instead of eating non-food products and the like. People would realize that they have one body and when it's done it's done. Do you want to live in the body forever?

Another issue that is often forgotten is the concept of "universal comfort".  It is a system, really, just like wealth.  In a system of one government, with a population living communistically, everyone will be equalized, their comfort (and wealth) averaged.  What most people in western society don't really factor is how radically a global average would reduce their own state of living.  Now me, for example.  I have ended the past five fiscal years beneath the United States "poverty line."  The why's are not relevant, though I assure you it is by my own choosing.  But I am quite comfortable.  In fact, in the US, even a homeless person is quite comfortable (I've been this too) compared with someone living in India, say.  If you were to figure the average income per person across the entire world, you'd end up with a figure somewhere in the ballpark of $1000 per year.  A thousand bucks.  Most people in America pay that monthly just for housing!

Comfort levels and the idea of suffering are subject to your mental conditioning. To live without really gives you more freedom. Your only as rich as your mind is creative. Creativity is a major part of the new society. It a birthright directly from the one who created mankind and leisure mind works towards this effect. I've always said that the reason that we haven't developed is due to our creations. One creation stifles more advance creations and thinking just as big business buries great ideas for their own profit. The re-evaluation of ideas and the experimentation of new ones based on populous vote. Ideas would be presented and the more interesting ones would be given goverment support and work force.

You see, our livelihood depends solely on the blood and sweat of un(der)developed nations. 

This is a shame. There is no justice when you take advantage of a country that doesn't have and will never have the resources to ever come out on top unless you manage to finacially pull them out of a hole. The thing is we condition them with our commercials and show them something they can't have. This is suffering.

If you rewind the clock and look at America around the Industrial Revolution, you'll notice that the living situations of the factory workers were deplorable.  But through unionization and such, their children moved to middle management-type positions and enjoyed an increase in comfort.  But unionization didn't get rid of those underpaying, overworking jobs.  They just moved overseas.  Now, working conditions aside, what this shows is that economically, we (as humans) have not yet learned to exist without the lower classes.  World government and equal opportunities will only hurt us until we remedy this particular dependence.

In the new world mankind will learn to live without a lower class. Only one social class educated to fullfill all civil functions.

Now, if at some point we are able to invent robots to carry out every conceivable task (including robot design and robot manufacture and robot maintenance), then a world government might not be so bad. 

Who knows what we really have in regards to technology.

Of course, we'll need to castrate 99% of the population to avoid breeding ourselves into oblivion, but that's another can of worms.

...................and that's the nicer approach.

I could blather on for eternity, but I'll kindly cut this off here. 

Your comments are very intelligent DodgingGrunge. I have enjoy reading everything you have said.

[Scott]

News: Report of hotter summers to come by 10 degrees.

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/nasa-predicts-sizzling-summers-for-east/20070510232009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[DodgingGrunge]

Well, the computer simulations are premature at best.  Right now our understanding of weather patterns is simply too primitive to make accurate predictions of any kind.  Hence throwing eggs at the weekly weatherman.  And one should always be cautious when reading an article that singles out CO₂ emissions as the cause of global temperature increases.  As stated before, CO₂ makes up a tiny percentage of the total atmospheric greenhouse gasses and its per-part impact decreases exponentially inversely to its abundance.  CFCs and Methane are far better targets for temperature reduction (the latter of which could be put to use generating power).

[flackbait]

And one should always be cautious when reading an article that singles out CO2 emissions as the cause of global temperature increases

You also need to be cautious about one that denies that CO2 is the cause and states that global warming is just a natural process. The problem with any news heard from other people is that people alway seem to tweak it just a little bit, or interpret it differently.