[CaptainHaplo]

The inital post - while well written - is rather insulting and rather anti-Western in its tone. It can be summed up as:

"By explaining the thinking process (or lack thereof) behind the deniers of climate change, and pointing out how they simply are too caught up in their own selfishness or fear of change, those of us who embrace the problems can feel self righteous and intellectually superior. This allows us to also set aside any argument or fact from those nay sayers, as their error in thinking already shows any point they make that we don't like are irrelevant."

Or - as the old tactic is referred to, if you can't win by tearing down the facts, tear down those who present them instead. I can honestly only see this as an attempt to marginalize those who are not convinced on the issue of climate change.

I am going to start by pointing out some very basic flaws with the general premises, and go from there. First, lets deal with this:

First some general statements.

1. All human behaviour is egoistical in that even any rational decision-making and weighing of options depends on standards seen as valid by the individual – even where assessing if own standards shall bow to standards (or demands) of others.

Not all human behavior is egotistical. On the contrary, humanity has shown itself to be capable of extremes - both in selfishness and in selflessness. While our nature may be one of selfishness, our intellect allows us to act beyond that nature. From the person who puts themselves at risk for another, to the sacrifice every parent makes for their child when they could easily just say no, humanity as a whole often acts unselfishly - whether those acts are rational or not. Its also telling that the premise attempts to equate individuality and self determination with being "egotistical" - since an individual would "assess if own standards shall bow to standards of others". If it were not for the "egotism" of those who, individually, made decisions to rise against the injustice of the standards of others - the entire world would be still be supportive and accepting of such acts like slavery, women as property, etc.

Without the willingness of individuals to go against the currents, society and mankind would be nearly stagnant, and any stagnant civilization is a mere step from its demise.

2. Rational behaviour tends to be destructive in the long run, since it is based on egoistical mo-tives in the meaning of point 1.), and beyond, it favours the strong at the cost of the weaker. An economy basing on egoism as it’s prime motivation aims at preventing competition, dis-connects itself from it’s service for the community, and ultimately destroys both the com-munity and itself – doing so rationally, and as a result of rational, reasonable decision-making.

Here we go again - rational behavior is destructive - because its selfish. Yet there is proof that it need not be selfish. But take it further - or "beyond" - it favors the strong at the cost of the weak. How so? There is no context here - its just a statement thrown out there. Apparently the original author that Skybird references it to somehow thought that if he threw it out there, it might stick. And it goes further - because an "economy" (read that as any free market approach) that is based on "egotism" (aka - individualism) is destroying the community and world (apparently through global warming??)! Now - if you take the "strong" and "weak" and use them in that context - it still doesn't make a lot of sense. However, if you equate "strong" for "hard working" and "weak" for "lazy" - it suddenly makes alot of sense - and would read like this:

Any individual who does for themselves and is hard working has an advantage (strong) in any free market economy over someone who is lazy (weak). Now - let that just stew while we continue - because your going to see it tied in later as the West is further bashed.

4.) Any community, locally or globally, can only survive if it consumes no more resources than can be replaced naturally by the ecosphere the community lives in. The smaller the resource basis of a community, by own fault or as an environmental reality the community was confronted with from it’s beginning on, the worse it’s chance for long-term survival.

5.) A population growth/size beyond a level were sustainable management of natural resources is possible, marks the beginning of a downward spiral that ultimately must end in total collapse, if not being stopped by a decline in population size below the level of then-actual sustainable re-sources management again, which will be a lower level than before, then. If the loss and damage has become too great meanwhile, the environment from some point on cannot recover or cannot replace enough resources as would be needed to supply the population size currently in place, and the temporary losses turn into permanent losses.

6.) Permanent losses minimise future survival chances for later generations, by marking options that are no longer there since they have been consumed. All consummation of resources that do not get replaced by nature within the timeframe relevant for human evolution, like metal ores, oil, gas, are permanent losses, and will never be available again to the present or future mankind. There are resource types that - if consumed - are either sustainable or that are permanently lost from the very beginning on if consumed. Too excessive consummation of sustainable resources turns them into permanently lost resources.

Ok - 4 and 5 are perfectly logical and demonstrably true. In fact, we are in my own personal estimation - headed for a issue with #5 regardless of whether climate change is real or not. However, #6 - while true - is instead designed as a heart tug - think of the children and the future - stop consuming! While reasonable to a point - it fails to account for the normal progress of civilization. Or - to illustrate the point - when was the last time you went hungry because you couldn't find flint to start a fire and cook your food - all because previous generations used it up? As society moves forward, it develops new techniques of doing things that do not rely on the same old resources. A wise society insteads transitions into using new resources - but more often than not, those that argue for us to "consume" less - also want to block any attempts to use technological gains to enable us to produce and consume as we desire without harm to the environment.

We live in interesting times, to say the least.

The planet is crowded with humans like never before. The level of development and living conditions of 15% of the global population – the “happy few” in the industrialised first world, mainly the West – strictly contrasts to those that the lower 70 or 80% of the global population have to deal with, with mil-lions needlessly dying every year from starvation, disease and proxy-wars fought over precious natural resources. The reaction to misery and suffering often is either apathy, or political and religious fanati-cism, fuelling the conflicts of the present and near future.

Ok - here we see the thrust of the finger - the evil westerners (of course - that is usually meant as one country - the USA). What is ironic is that in one sentence, the claim is too many people exist, then it flips into hand-wringing over "millions" of that overpopulation "needlessly dying every year". And then there is the obligitory - we either don't care - or our political/religious fanaticism is the cause of the whole distress!

No credit for the fact that we - as individuals - give charitably more per capita than any other nation. No mention of the governmental subsidies that are granted every year to numerous under-developed countries - often only to be misused by dictators and tyrants who care nothing for their own people. No looking at those who oppress their own people and keep them starving and diseased, instead pointing at the nation and people who give freely of food, medicine and treasure to help save those lives. Our entire system of hard work has its rewards is unfair because it doesn't make everyone equally able to share the rewards.

And this isn't an insult and attack on us? Give me a break.

If Americans as a nation and people were nearly as apathetic as is claimed, we would be making the point that the more of them die, the closer the numbers of humanity get to what the global ecosystem can maintain. After all - the more that perish, the less overtaxed the system is right? But we don't make that arguement, because it would be morally reprehensible to most of us. Instead, we do what we can and shake our head at the hatred and envy that is so rampant.

The level of planetary garbage mounting and in-toxication of the environment, from aerial emissions over nano-particles and chemical agents in water, ground, food and breathing air, to swimming plastic waste dumps in the oceans that reach the size of the expanse of Texas each, are already directly life-threatening in certain places, but threaten human and animal health around all the planet, now and increasingly in the future, putting the chances of the next generation more and more into question. We commit physical injury and slaughter of unborn generations.

Again with the "do it for the children" line. You want to talk about physical injury and slaughter of unborn generations, we can discuss abortion. Again the reality is that there are ways of solving the waste problems - but the vast majority of them are opposed by the environmental lobby, not because of environmental concerns of today, but because of historical positions and fear - or could it simply be the desire to keep real solutions form happening - until nature forces the problem into a critical mass and they can thereby exert further control upon us "egotistical individuals"? After all - if solutions are found that do not strip individuals of their rights to self-determination, then the entire power grab that is in progress using climate change - is a failure.

Obviously, this reflects widespread popular thinking today, but maybe that is only because it is a self-reassuring feedback to ourselves that as long as we do not see ourselves addressing problems, the prob-lems are not really threatening – that’s why we must not act on them! Can we really be sure that we do not follow this thinking for one reason only? Because it reassures us that we do well in not changing, not acting, living in assumed eternal comfort and not being in danger at all? Isn’t that just an all too seduc-tive view on life – our life in the first world? It certainly is the easiest, cheapest and most comfortable way we could imagine for our future.

See - if your not sure global warming isn't real - if there exists even the slightest chance that the doomsday scenario might really happen - your ignorant or selfish if you choose to live in the "all too seductive" and "easy, cheap and comfortable" way you do. Stop being selfish - go build you a grass hut to live in right now. If your not willing to jump into the 3rd world - whether at home or abroad - and be counted amongst those "millions" who perish - your just selfish. We should all be ashamed of ourselves - who do we think we are, working hard for what we have?

One could hint at interest conflicts and lobbyism, group dynamics and the self dynamics of actual conditions and processes that already have been triggered, wanted or un-wanted, knowingly or unknowingly.

More systematically, there are four scenarios for why societies do not act in the face of vital problems threatening their existence:

1. A problem does not get recognised before it has become existent.

2. A problem does not get perceived as a problem or does not get realised, although it is real and does exist.

3. After realising a problem, nothing gets done in order to solve it.

4. The attempted solution fails.

Actually - there are other scenes and situations as well....

#5 - The problem isn't real to start with.
or
#6 - Reasonable solutions to the problems that would not cause a multinational regression - economically and socially, are opposed by those who want to use the "future problem" as a tool in which to enrich their own power, influence and control.

From here we launch into numerous "examples" of where things can go wrong. Pay special attention to the examples used.

2. A PROBLEM DOES NOT GET PERCEIVED AS A PROBLEM, OR DOES NOT GET REALISED, ALTHOUGH IT IS REAL AND DOES EXIST.
2c) The problem manifests itself very slowly, in a slowly growing trend with huge fluctuation.
Examples are
- Global Warming

The "reasoning" again assumes facts "not in evidence" - because the issue of GW is in dispute - no matter how much those who embrace it want to say otherwise. But when one is denouncing those with a different view as simply egotistical, selfish and uncaring, your not likely to be denounced, now are you?

3) AFTER REALISING A PROBLEM, NOTHING GETS DONE IN ORDER TO SOLVE IT.
3b) The perpetrator knows that he will get away with it.
- the profit from violating a rule or legal demand may be bigger than the penalty for the violation.
- ineffective economy branches are kept running or do not get modernised, because they receive voluminous subsidies keeping them alive.
- woodcutting companies may sign contracts and pay a lease for using a certain piece of land for a limited time. Logic tells them that in that time they should make as much use of it as possible so they try to achieve the maximum quota of cutting trees. When the contract ends, the owning nation and local people are left to deal with the eroded land and long-term-consequences.

3c) Egoism
“It may be bad for you, but it is good for me.” Examples:
- instead of investing into modernisation and improving working conditions and loans for workers, a board of directors decides to raise it’s bonuses.
- A mining company moves away after giving up a mine and does not pay for cleaning the acid leaches and properties.
- a healthy company gets destroyed and it’s workers betrayed by investments funds in order to give foreign investors a maximum profit by bleeding the company white and exploiting it’s fi-nancial and economic assets beyond what it needs to stay alive and healthy: the so-called “locust plague”.

That evil West and its evil capitalism again. While I agree its not a perfect system, and its also does need some independant and objective regulation, that regulation needs to be limited. The issue of the mining company in particular needs attention - because when it does happen - and it has - there are avenues to redress the problem. Capitalism is not the evil - the moral and ethical vacuum in which it can exist is. But wait - we aren't done!

- Then there is irrational behaviour in general, action and solutions get prevented by
o religion and values,

Ok - religion and "values" prevent solutions. Lets abolish religion - and how are values going to be set? Or will there be no values? The point goes back to the self determination - give up your values to the collective group - or else your standing in the way of a "solution".

o historical conservatism and traditionalism

Conservatism and traditionalism are apparently evil - because anything that differs with the new collective consciousness is an impediment apparently.

o historic self-definition, emotional sentimentality, misunderstood “steadiness”

Historical "self-definition" - well yes you have your history - and I have mine - but yours is unimportant to who you are? Ever heard the saying that you either learn from your history - or your doomed to repeat it????

o rejection of everybody who questions what one has grown fond of

Boy - talk about the pot calling the kettle black! This is exactly what this dissertation is trying to do - reject anyone who disputes the embraced philosophy!

o previous false alarms

In the 80's - it was the coming ice age.... But if you doubt the "science" that is being forcefed due to previous errors - your to be marginalized. I guess no one ever read these people the story of "The boy who cried Wolf!"

o Mass hysteria

If this is counterproductive to a solution, why does the pro-global warming side do all they can to instigate it?

o Lobbyism and it’s propaganda

This cuts 2 ways - the evil corporations are not the only one's lobbying and putting out propoganda - but mention that and again your just an evil Westerner out to kill off "millions".

o The stress of pressure from the outside subjugates members of a group to collectively support decisions instead of thinking individually and questioning these decisions criti-cally.

Hold everything! You mean like the scientist that admits was afraid he would lose his job if he didn't sign the "I believe in the science of global warming even after the emails were released"? That can't count as an example. After all - everything so far has been individualism and critical, independant thinking is supposed to be a bad thing! Critical thinking and individualism must only be evil if it contravenes or interferes with the best ways to grab power.....

I don't think Skybird personally meant this as the attack on the dominant Western society that it is. But to let it go unchallenged when it is so obviously flawed at so many points is not something I can do.