There is no possible way to take the ecological impact into account on everything people do. The numbers of actions would overwhelm anyone. RubySlippers's post is rather hard and rigid, but she is entilted to her opinion.
Agreed, is that a reason to just throw the baby out with the bathwater? I don't think so. At no point did I say she's not entitled to her opinion.
They did migrate. Many stayed behind, some because they didn't want to leave, others because they could not leave and the local government dropped the ball big time.
My point is that it pointed out how badly people accomplish migration in emergency conditions.
You can bet that politicians look at people like that. Assets to be used and directed for their own gain. You rail against corporations, but do not forget the legal power politicians have to do and shape things.
So what? I don't rail against ALL corporations, just the ones who put profit before their contribution (or detriment) to the community they are a part of, be it a small town, the US, or the world.
Good theory, but an impossibility to do. Especially if it involves people losing the comforts they have gotten used to. The only way you would come close to having the enviromental effect taken into account and acted on, would be in a totalitarian style society. People would have to be forced to do what is 'good' for the enviroment.
It's certainly easier to just throw up one's hands and say that it'll never be perfect so why bother, a school of thought my brother subscribes to as well. I like to think that human beings are intelligent enough to manage change with having it forced on them.
The pay of CEOs is the business of the company that they run. No one should be sticking their nose into it. Yes, employees are concidered as things, but that is the nature of the company. It is in business to do one thing and one thing only. Make money. A company that doesn't make money will die and fade away. They need money to survive and grown. That is why there is outsourcing. Because the costs of doing business is cheaper in other countries. That is a global economy.
Careful about putting words in my mouth, I'm not proposing anything more than being responsible for what I support. I consider every dollar I spend to be a vote for the ethics of the company it supports, that's my way of influencing things. Imagine if everyone did so? Not that everyone has to share my values, but I wonder if the system would function quite differently if there were less apathy and absolute individualism.
The short term cost of operation using outsourcing may be cheaper, but when you factor in the effect it has on the community that business is a part of, at least to the level of it being part of the US, that theory no longer works.
The companies also have the option (which is less of an option nowadays and more of a requirement in some states) of offering health insurance. That is well and good, but why shouldn't the employee be the one to decide what he or she wants for insurance? Or even if they want any? Some people don't want any.
I was referring to disability insurance... I don't think I've met anyone who didn't want that. Health insurance is a separate issue for another thread (which I think already exists).
Yes. the people do get the government that they want. That is a result of the democratic system that we have. Every few years there's the oppertunaty to remove/replace the politicians that seriously annoy the voters.
The system we have is not a true democracy, it's more of a republic system because of the sheer number of constituents. I have to wonder what would happen if EVERYONE participated... but PLEASE don't assume that I'm proposing that we force people to vote. What I'm proposing is that the importance of a person's participation in the 'democratic' process we employ is EQUALLY as important as their pursuit of wealth... as a matter of fact it impacts it directly.
What's wrong with being individualistic? It's what makes us human. If we were not individualistic, we'd be like ants or bees. Each person in their place.
At what point did I propose that no degree of individualism is good? Please don't put words in my mouth. This is NOT an all or nothing situation... very few things are. There's is a LOT of room between an ant and a person who doesn't seem to think much beyond how much money they can cram in their wallet and how far ahead they can get, personally.
We've already gotten past that point. Thank you very much. Our power plants pollute alot less than the Chinese and we are working on ways of making cleaner power. The China comparison isn't a valid one.
We are? Sorry, I don't see much evidence. And PLEASE don't say nuclear power... see my previous post regarding lifecycle analysis.
Economies are also what help countries grow. So they will always be concidered over the life of a person. No one person is more important that the economic well being of a nation. Large groups of people, then you are talking about something different, and that can have some effect.
What are large groups of people, other than a grouping of individual people? I don't recall implying that one individual person's needs should bring an economy to a halt.
Factory farming is here to stay. Better methods of growing crops to eat and burn in your car are constantly being developed, since the demand will never go down for them. The only way to stop it is to take the land away from the corps and give it to small farmers. Which won't happen in the US. It is happening in Zimbabewa(sp) and that country has gone to hell. It used to be a food exporter, now they face starvation and famine.
The word 'better' is a sticky one... better for whom? For how long? Because if you add 'beyond immediate gratification' to the end of 'better' it becomes a different ballgame. You know, your insistence on seeing things as black or white is interesting. Taking the land away is NOT the only way to stop it... surely you don't really believe that? And you honestly posit that giving land to small farmers is the reason Zimbabwe is struggling? An interesting theory... I suspect climate change may have some influence, among other things.
..and one of my favorites. Genetic engineering. That is what willl save us. Genetically engineered foods that can grow with less water, in differing climates, have added nutriants are coming and cannot be ignored. There are people and groups that have tried to stop the sale of a rice that has been genetically improved, for cultivation in the equateral countries. Because of suspected problems. Do you think the people who that crop will feed really care where it comes from? No. They won't give a damn, all they'll want is to feed their familes.
In a world of "black or white" thinking (not racially, of course) one could conclude that genetic engineering is the end all, be all solution to our every problem. There are myriad crops that can survive in myriad climates... why not match the crop to the climate instead of trying to force every crop to every climate by morphing it?
Regarding rice, I think that that is pretty weak logic for doing something so broadly that could have vast consequences. As I said before... Monarch butterflies are a perfect example. If GM foods are the same, why are the butterflies affected? Maybe you don't care about butterflies, but either way there's no denying that GM crops could easily have side effects. And regardless, I should have the choice of not purchasing them if I don't want to. They should be clearly labeled.
Also, what about GM seeds that have to be "activated"? That is a frightening prospect no matter how you cut it, unless you're the person profiting from the sale of the activating medium.