HIV vaccine a reality!

[kandrathe]

Telomeres in the news again. Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol Greider and Jack Szostak jointly share the Nobel Prize for medicine.

Nobel prize for chromosome find

"If the telomeres did repeatedly shorten, cells would rapidly age. Conversely, if the telomere length is maintained, the cell would have eternal life, which could also be problematic. This happens in the case of cancer cells."

[Zenda]

I don't consume very much (good)

If not consuming very much is good, then why are you bringing up arguments against it?

It would mostly just transfer resources from people who care about the environment, to people who don't.

And taxing just transfer resources from people who cannot afford much, to people who can. Is that so much better? Is that even different from the current situation?

Anyway, I think we agree that the ultimate goal is decreased consumption of harmful products. Your reasoning that consuming less will not lead to less consumption is beyond my understanding, but I'll keep on cycling just in case you're wrong ;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

If not consuming very much is good, then why are you bringing up arguments against it?

No one is arguing against not consuming very much. What we are arguing is that doing that voluntarily is not sufficient to solve the problem. The point is that not enough people will do that. And that those that don't will negate the efforts of those that do.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
No one is arguing against not consuming very much. What we are arguing is that doing that voluntarily is not sufficient to solve the problem. The point is that not enough people will do that. And that those that don't will negate the efforts of those that do.

--Pete

I think I get Zenda's point here. I think he is right in saying that people should start wanting to behave (consume) in a certain way to make a difference. This is then fueled by advertizing/lobbying from groups like greenpeace (or local environmental organizations). And so there are many people that feel that they need to do something to protect the environment, and these people also feel good by actually doing something (I think I consider myself one of those people). This group of people is responsible for the 'succes' of eco-brand food etc.

Point is however that this will never be enough. There is a large group of people that simply doesn't give a crap, or that don't have the economical means to e.g. buy the more expensive eco-foods.
The same will go for worse forms of pollution. We all know that our electronic equipment when it dies is shipped to Africa and Asia where the metals are 'recycled' using open fires by children, but the 'eco-computer' is not a big thing yet.

Probably the public opinion (via special interest groups) has helped to finally put the environment on the political agenda....so in that sense 'doing your bit' is very impportant.....but that is as far as it goes......after that it is times for laws enfored by the state. And not the fascist type of fines that Kandrathe was talking about when he mentioned his banana-peel example. No, the guy that does the poluting pays directly.
The whole problem of unclarity, length of the supply chain, shady governments and the difficulty of establishing who is responsible is the reason why we are still burning and cutting down rainforest in Africa, Asia and South America. We all know that it is wrong but we don't manage to stop it.


A global enforcement agency for environmental pollution, or maltreatment of workers would be helpful.....but I dont thin k it is very easy to set up such a thing.

[kandrathe]

Probably the public opinion (via special interest groups) has helped to finally put the environment on the political agenda....so in that sense 'doing your bit' is very impportant.....but that is as far as it goes......after that it is times for laws enfored by the state. And not the fascist type of fines that Kandrathe was talking about when he mentioned his banana-peel example. No, the guy that does the poluting pays directly.

It would only be Fascist if I took away your yard, then cleaned it up. But, to hold you accountable for having a clean yard is not fascist.

[Jester]

If not consuming very much is good, then why are you bringing up arguments against it?

I'm simply speaking in your "moral" terms. I understand that my choices have almost zero impact - I was merely defending myself against the implication that my arguments are merely a justification for my own wastefulness.

And taxing just transfer resources from people who cannot afford much, to people who can. Is that so much better? Is that even different from the current situation?

If it's the distributional problem that you're worried about, then the solution is obvious - take the money from the Pigou tax, and plow it back into tax breaks for the poor. There's nothing that dictates what the government must spend this extra revenue on, so you can use it to further whatever goal you like.

Anyway, I think we agree that the ultimate goal is decreased consumption of harmful products. Your reasoning that consuming less will not lead to less consumption is beyond my understanding, but I'll keep on cycling just in case you're wrong ;)

Cycling has all sorts of positive effects for you personally, and there is an (extremely tiny) effect in reducing demand. So, feel free to keep it up, it's at least not hurting anything. My point is that there is no justification for turning this into a moral harangue, wagging your finger at everyone. That is a non-solution, unless you've got the cure for human nature.

-Jester

[Zenda]

The point is that not enough people will do that. And that those that don't will negate the efforts of those that do.

Everyone can decide for him or herself to which group they want to belong. If the majority prefers to profit from the situation, we'll have a problem, yes. But in that case no solution will ever be sufficient (and not really needed, if you ask me).

after that it is times for laws enfored by the state

And who will support those laws? The majority that needed to be forced? They would simply vote for a Wilders and have the laws revoked, don't you think?

Also, have you thought about how much effort and bureaucracy it would take, to set taxes/prices that reflect the real ecological damage for each and every product, and to have every economy in the world accept it? You think it's possible? How soon?

I understand that my choices have almost zero impact

Well, according to your own reasoning, your flying habits do have more then zero impact. Imagine how many people would be flying for less important reasons if you didn't take up the space.

There's nothing that dictates what the government must spend this extra revenue on, so you can use it to further whatever goal you like.

What makes you think I would have any say in that? Reality shows that most tax revenues go to more 'important' matters such as wars and economies that need to stay floating. Why would that suddenly be different?

My point is that there is no justification for turning this into a moral harangue, wagging your finger at everyone.

Not sure where you got that, but I'm not the one here saying that people are selfish. My only point is that there is no reason to wait for laws that force you into doing things that you already want to do.

[--Pete]

Hi,

And who will support those laws? The majority that needed to be forced? They would simply vote for a Wilders and have the laws revoked, don't you think?

I don't think the majority is pro waste. I think the majority is apathetic and ignorant. Left to their own devices, they'll always take the easy way. They'll eat junk food rather than preparing a healthy meal. They'll buy cheap rather than good. They'll vote for their party rather than for individuals. They'll pay lip service to the religion of their parents rather than think for themselves. These are not the people that will look at an item and realize that it was made from materials recycled by children working under terrible conditions. Hell, these are the type of people who don't even know that that kind of situation exists.

So, depending on these people to join into an informed boycott is unrealistic. It would take a major change in human nature. Any solution that is based on unrealistic premises is at best useless and in some cases (communism is one such, being based on the incorrect concept that people will work as hard for the common good as they would for their personal benefit) downright harmful. Real solutions have to be based on the reality, not some ivory tower concept of what people should be.

My only point is that there is no reason to wait for laws that force you into doing things that you already want to do.

And that I can and do agree with. However, one needs to distinguish between what makes you feel good and what actually addresses the problem. To say that we should *all* be ecologically aware and responsible is right, to think that that will actually happen is a dream. The world needs more than a dream.

--Pete

[Jester]

Not sure where you got that, but I'm not the one here saying that people are selfish. My only point is that there is no reason to wait for laws that force you into doing things that you already want to do.

The Pigovian taxes are not to make *me* do anything. They're to make *everyone* do the same thing.

-Jester

[Zenda]

So, depending on these people to join into an informed boycott is unrealistic.

But the good part about this solution is that you do not depend on others to join in. You can do what you feel is necessary without needing their support. Then, when the 'ultimate' solution finally arrives, there will at least be a bit less waste to clean up, or slightly less Pigovian taxes to pay, for all of us.

Btw, it's not such a big sacrifice as you all seem to think it is. You'll be amazed how much money you save, and how quickly you realize you never needed the junk you're no longer buying.

Real solutions have to be based on the reality, not some ivory tower concept of what people should be.

True, but the same goes for ivory tower concepts about apathic and ignorant people. We *are* those people, just like anyone else.

The world needs more than a dream.

The world needs more than people merely discussing problems.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Good idea, but: pollution is a global problem. As long as the manufacturing of products continues to migrate to where the profit is greatest (i.e., where the regulations are least, or least enforced) we'll continue to have lead based paint on toys and anti-freeze in our toothpaste. The solution seems to require a strong central global authority. Such an authority may very well cause more problems than it solves and opens the door to global tyranny.

Even if a global authority had no down side, the chances of it occurring in any reasonable time-frame look to be slim. Looking about, we see an increased Balkanization of the world and a resurgence of strong nationalism. The EU seems to be a movement in the direction of globalization of government, but it has many problems.

So, if there are any miracles left unused, we can all hope one of them will be a useful UN. I expect that to happen shortly after pigs come under FAA jurisdiction. :whistling:

--Pete

Here is an idea.

Use the UN to enforce pollution standards as two particular nations felt the wrath of blowing off UN rules and standards in the recent past: Iraq and Serbia.

Bomb them.

Hit them with cruise missiles. ( I refer to Iraq before it was invaded in 2003. )

Make the bastards pay.

It is, after all, a global problem that is a threat to everyone else on the plante.

That's me, out of the box thinker, rogue, et cetera. Hell, a nice Diablo I clvl 40 arty mage let loose for just one afternoon in China might send a brilliant message.

Occhi