g8 results

Quote:

---

growing food in africa is becoming harder as farmers are pushed out by subsidised over producing of the west.

---

1. You can grow food just for yourself.
2. Yes, but the imports lower prices so more people can buy food and eat and survive.
3. Saying we can't sell goods to Africa is against the free market(which you supported in saying we need to abolish tariffs).
4. We shouldn't be subsidizing our farmers in the first place, but that's another topic. :)

Quote:

---

we cannot let time do it's thing africa has consistantly gotten poorer and not ending this now will just result in millions of more deaths.

---

We cannot make a country improve - unless we invade, conquer, and order around. We cannot make them use condoms, we cannot make them give a damn about their government, we cannot make them spend the money we give to them wisely. The only thing we can do is what voluntary charity agencies have been doing for years - trying to educate them. Everything else is superfluous at best and counterproductive at worst.

You're saying we should invade and overthrow their corrupt governments to save lives. But in the case of Iraq, you're saying we shouldn't have done this exact same thing. I can't even fathom the mess of contradictions that entails.

1. with what money to buy seed? fertilizer? in case of famine or drought?
2. but screw over african farmers so leaving afirca dependant.
3. maybe for africa the free market should be one way traffic?
4. no you shouldn't say 30,000 african kids.

we don't not need to invade a country to make it improve? since when was that the only way? (rhetorical question it was of course a few years ago). we can simply follow the africa's commission's advice. we can help save millions of lifes a year. we can help people eat daily. then and only then will these people care about their government.

"we cannot make them spend the money we give to them wisely" i do hope that comment was about the african governments not the people.

i didn't say invasion was a good idea (well it is for sudan and zimbabwe). i said letting go off them as an empire has caused this mess. and if we hadn't done it maybe things would be better or more controllable. but we cannot go back to these ways. those days are over. we can just do our bit. and our bit is doing everything possible to not have 50,000 a day die of starvation.

Africa is a farming society is it not? non-industrialized in other words.

If I recall the majority still make thier living from farming. So therefor selling cheaper subsidized grains and such takes away the african's jobs making more starve. after all without a job you can't buy food.. even if it is cheaper. Now selling cheaper industrialized goods to them may work since from my knowledge they aren't overly industrialized over there.

Disclaimer- I really don't know much about where exactly they stand in industrialized/farming category.

africa is mostly farming as industrialising is quite expensive and rigth now building factories is not the first thing on their agenda.

but we are missing one point on this thread which i think needs to be addressed now. the other failure of the g8. the envrionment (well in fact it was only america's failing but we can't blame everything on the great satan in such and up-front manner as they might get upset, lol). america for the countless time running blocked any porgress on global warming.

as a scot i'm not too bothered about global warming. it's rainy and cold here so abit of heat would do us a good. and then we can eat bananas and coconuts on the mountains as the english drown.

but beside that. it's a huge issue. and one that continues to not be addressed by america. apparently the waves have to be washing around the empire state building before the american government decides that now might be a good time to do something. of course it would destroy the american economy. which is proved by the absolute poverty the other 7 countries are now living in *cough*.

they even had the cheek this year to take the first line out of the conclusion which said the world was heating up. and aside from admitting that climate change had a little bit to do with us humans being around. it did little else.

but in a week where america refuses yet again to move on climate change, people died of drought in africa, the coral reefs are reduced by carbon emmissions, the sea gradually rose. the ice caps slowly melted. there was something else in the news. a hurricane heading towards florida. with wether like that estimated to get more regular. either america moves or it's people will suffer. then and maybe only then when americans drown will america decide that it might be a good time to listen to the 7 of the other countries in the g8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Ok, so you're all for an isolationist policy...except for this case. Why? Is 30,000 dead kids/day where you draw the line? "We shouldn't invade another country unless they invade us first...unless 30,000 kids/day are dying." Does the government have to be killing all of those kids - or, say, if an epidemic(AIDS) wiped through a village, killing 30,000 babies, would that warrant invasion?

"We must invade Africa." "Why?" "Because kids are dying." "But kids are dying here all the time from abusive parents to starvation to disease and any of a whole list of things - what makes Africa special?" There is no objective reason(that I've heard, anyway).

---

... God [/i]damn[/i]. That's never happened before. You just absolutely nailed my argument. I can't come up with any arguments not based on pathos/ethos to explain this. It is my belief that the most effective way to solve the problems is invasion, but I can't make an objective argument for it.

At any rate, even if it were widely believed to be the best option I doubt there would be any form of invasion and imperialism (I mean we're not touching Sudan or Zimbabwe, so anything big enough to cause it seems far, far away.), so it falls on the African people to do their best. Which is where abolishing trade subsidies and the like come into play...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No. 9

but we are missing one point on this thread which i think needs to be addressed now. the other failure of the g8. the envrionment (well in fact it was only america's failing but we can't blame everything on the great satan in such and up-front manner as they might get upset, lol). america for the countless time running blocked any porgress on global warming.

---

America failed the world because the G8 agreed to talks with numerous developing nations specifically regarding climate change, with the aims of creating a fair system which won't cost several million American jobs? Ok, if you say so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No. 9

as a scot i'm not too bothered about global warming. it's rainy and cold here so abit of heat would do us a good. and then we can eat bananas and coconuts on the mountains as the english drown.

---

I like your total absence of knowledge on how Global Warming is supposedly to take effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No. 9

but beside that. it's a huge issue. and one that continues to not be addressed by america. apparently the waves have to be washing around the empire state building before the american government decides that now might be a good time to do something. of course it would destroy the american economy. which is proved by the absolute poverty the other 7 countries are now living in *cough*.

---

Well, think about it. Everyone is fond of throwing around numbers about how much in the way of resources the US uses - so the effect would inevitably be greater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No. 9

they even had the cheek this year to take the first line out of the conclusion which said the world was heating up. and aside from admitting that climate change had a little bit to do with us humans being around. it did little else.

---

Generally, the US isn't sure that Humanity is entirely responsible for climate change. Given that at the height of the Roman Empire they had vineyards in Britain, and that during the Holy Roman Empire and period of Cathedrals the temperate was much lower than today, you can see that the global temperature changes quite happily and rapidly of it's own accord. It's not that it doesn't happen so much as it's not necessarily our fault, and it's also fairly optimistic to think our level of technology is going to contain the global temperature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No. 9

but in a week where america refuses yet again to move on climate change, people died of drought in africa, the coral reefs are reduced by carbon emmissions, the sea gradually rose. the ice caps slowly melted. there was something else in the news. a hurricane heading towards florida. with wether like that estimated to get more regular. either america moves or it's people will suffer. then and maybe only then when americans drown will america decide that it might be a good time to listen to the 7 of the other countries in the g8.

---

The Vostok Ice Core quite plainly shows that over thousands of years the Earth's temperature fluctuates not by two or three degrees, but varies within a range of over twelve degrees. Had Humakind reached a technological society just a few thousands of years earlier or later, we'd probably be having an extremely similar argument under extremely different conditions. Scotland might be a sheet of ice, or it might be a baking costa.

I will wait until convincing evidence which is not based on post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, which takes into consideration the massive fluctuations in any period of Earth's history, and which isn't reliant on incomplete and often entirely awry cloud modelling in computer programs. Also, it's become politicized - which means there are only extremes to go to. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground, there is only 'Global warming will kill us all!' or 'There's no such thing!'.

Finally, I don't have acres of faith in consensus science.

Yes, but we should abolish trade subsidies because we shouldn't be subsidizing in the first place(that is a left-over product of the late 19th century when the government subsidized railroads were charging too much for the farmers to ship their goods - the government chose to fix a problem that started with government subsidies by throwing more government money at it). And if farmers want to continue to export to Africa themselves, then they can.

Quote:

---

1. with what money to buy seed? fertilizer? in case of famine or drought?

---

In the case of a drought, the farmers can't make a business anyway, eh?

Quote:

---

2. but screw over african farmers so leaving afirca dependant.

---

Actually, I would think this would be great for Africa - they have a large supply of food, which means they can work on industrializing, and then they can sometime later go back to farming with better equipment. Of course, that'll have to wait until they learn to use condoms to stop dying from AIDS and they leave their corrupt governments and establish their own, free ones(or just overthrowing their governments). Again - choices they have to make before they can improve their situation.

Quote:

---

3. maybe for africa the free market should be one way traffic?

---

That is appalling.

Quote:

---

but we are missing one point on this thread which i think needs to be addressed now. the other failure of the g8. the envrionment (well in fact it was only america's failing but we can't blame everything on the great satan in such and up-front manner as they might get upset, lol). america for the countless time running blocked any porgress on global warming.

as a scot i'm not too bothered about global warming. it's rainy and cold here so abit of heat would do us a good. and then we can eat bananas and coconuts on the mountains as the english drown.

but beside that. it's a huge issue. and one that continues to not be addressed by america. apparently the waves have to be washing around the empire state building before the american government decides that now might be a good time to do something. of course it would destroy the american economy. which is proved by the absolute poverty the other 7 countries are now living in *cough*.

---

1. Global warming is not a factual crisis. Do you want to know how it got started? In the late 60s early 70s by hippies who took high school biology. "We're destroying so many trees...these trees inhale CO2...since all the trees are dying...the free CO2 just floats up in the atmosphere..." In the 70s there were two opposite theories: that the CO2 in the atmosphere would raise global temperatures; or that the CO2 int he atmosphere would shield the sun and lower global temperatures. It was blatant nonsense(80% of our CO2 -> oxygen cycle comes from plankton, not trees) - and it was only given credibility later when scientists noted rises in global temperatures. Whether it is catalysmic or not, whether it's really caused by industralization or not, is not fully known or understood.
2. Ruin the economy? New fuels, new branches of competition. Scientific break throughs help an economy. Since alternative fuels would probably be cheaper than oil is now, it would help the economy further by lowering the cost of living. However, as in all economic issues, it is not government business to tell us what to do - the people must make the demand of the scientists and coorporation, who follow that demand with supply. People want hybrid cars? People started buying them from Honda and Toyota, and now Ford's coming out with hybrids. The government can't just say "ok, we're not going to allow businesses that deal with oil." A government that can do that is a dictatorship.

Build factories and hire them as cheap labor. It's popular in other third world countries. What Africa lacks in wealth and power, it makes up for in population. Africans will make money independent of the gamble that is farming. A few wealthy entrepreneurs will make more of a fortune by paying less than satisfactory, (but still pretty much better than the current situation) wages. Once a country is industrialized, and you get the people working hard in factories, they'll have the money for education, food, and they'll be too tired to have so much unsafe sex that Aids runs rampant. The first step to becoming a modern nation is near exploitation labor. Or at least, that's how it worked in other nations. You have to have oppressive mill factories before you bring in Information Technologies and other High Tech industries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Yes, but we should abolish trade subsidies because we shouldn't be subsidizing in the first place(that is a left-over product of the late 19th century when the government subsidized railroads were charging too much for the farmers to ship their goods - the government chose to fix a problem that started with government subsidies by throwing more government money at it). And if farmers want to continue to export to Africa themselves, then they can.

---

Oh, I'm not disputing that they shouldn't exist in the first place, but rather stating that it's one of the few things which would make a difference that actually stand a chance of happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

1. Global warming is not a factual crisis. Do you want to know how it got started? In the late 60s early 70s by hippies who took high school biology. "We're destroying so many trees...these trees inhale CO2...since all the trees are dying...the free CO2 just floats up in the atmosphere..." In the 70s there were two opposite theories: that the CO2 in the atmosphere would raise global temperatures; or that the CO2 int he atmosphere would shield the sun and lower global temperatures. It was blatant nonsense(80% of our CO2 -> oxygen cycle comes from plankton, not trees) - and it was only given credibility later when scientists noted rises in global temperatures. Whether it is catalysmic or not, whether it's really caused by industralization or not, is not fully known or understood.
2. Ruin the economy? New fuels, new branches of competition. Scientific break throughs help an economy. Since alternative fuels would probably be cheaper than oil is now, it would help the economy further by lowering the cost of living. However, as in all economic issues, it is not government business to tell us what to do - the people must make the demand of the scientists and coorporation, who follow that demand with supply. People want hybrid cars? People started buying them from Honda and Toyota, and now Ford's coming out with hybrids. The government can't just say "ok, we're not going to allow businesses that deal with oil." A government that can do that is a dictatorship.

---

Whilst it is far from becoming, especially in this forum, my response can only be rendered thusly:

I'm my own MILF <333 Raistlin.

I'm fairly confident (Make that entirely adamant) that should global warming actually start having an effect, people will be quick to change.

we still have vineyards in britain........

i beg to ask and noone has yet explained it how a system of reducing co2 emmission which worked perfectly well in the 7 other g8 nations will somehow be totally different for america?

my thing about england was a joke if you missed it.

and the thing about the vostok ice core. notice the scale at the bottom. in 50 year gaps. well actually in 50 thousand year gaps. a huge difference to what has happened since industrialization in the last 200 years.

rasitlin why is saying that fre trade shoudl only be one way traffic for africa so aiding their economy appauling? helping save 50,000 lives a day is appauling? and to what cost?

i think the point about agreeing to kyoto improving and not damaging the american economy was my point.

garland here thinks that explotiation is a good thing and working these people to deaths ia a good thing and so al other points are void.

and when global warming does start to take greater effect than it is now except it will be too late. and the waves will be on manhatten and there will be little anyone can do about it. and maybe then america will learn to heed the warnings given it to it.

Quote:

---

i beg to ask and noone has yet explained it how a system of reducing co2 emmission which worked perfectly well in the 7 other g8 nations will somehow be totally different for america?

---

I have no idea. I'm not familiar with big industrial plants and CO2 emissions.

Quote:

---

and the thing about the vostok ice core. notice the scale at the bottom. in 50 year gaps. well actually in 50 thousand year gaps. a huge difference to what has happened since industrialization in the last 200 years.

---

Yes, and we used to have Ice Ages every 10,000-100,000 years. Rises and lowerings of temperatures is a natural cycle.

Quote:

---

rasitlin why is saying that fre trade shoudl only be one way traffic for africa so aiding their economy appauling? helping save 50,000 lives a day is appauling? and to what cost?

---

Because that's a dictatorship. The government should not have control of trade - either from tariffs or subsidies or anything else. And if the government stepped out of it, the farmers wouldn't get subsidized and wouldn't be shipping huge amounts of goods to Africa(or, if they did, it would have to be done independently or by independent distributors).
This is the problem with socialists - they look at the problem, and go for the "quick fix." This is how farming was subsidized in the first place - the rail roads were charging too much for the farmers to ship their goods. The problem was that the rail roads were government subsidized, meaning that the rail road didn't have to lower prices to meet demands - it would be paid anyway. Instead of doing the logical thing and stop funding the damn things, the government then started subsidizing the farmers - which, in this case, has proved to have even more consequences(the first of which is the government giving out all of this money taken from income tax, which is, again, another topic). The root of the problem must be taken care of, and in this situation, the root of the problem is government interference with free trade, which can't be solved with more government interference.

Quote:

---

garland here thinks that explotiation is a good thing and working these people to deaths ia a good thing and so al other points are void.

---

I think being paid minimal salaries to work in factories is a big step above sitting around and dying. But maybe that's just me.

Quote:

---

and when global warming does start to take greater effect than it is now except it will be too late. and the waves will be on manhatten and there will be little anyone can do about it. and maybe then america will learn to heed the warnings given it to it.

---

Again, there's no proof it will ever have a great effect. In fact, there's currently no proof that it is anything but a natural cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

garland here thinks that explotiation is a good thing and working these people to deaths ia a good thing and so al other points are void.

---

I think being paid minimal salaries to work in factories is a big step above sitting around and dying. But maybe that's just me.

---

Hm.. well being paid minimum wage isn't bad, as long as they follow humane standards. Not sure what should be called humane.. but the factory should definately be safe and sanitory.

there is proof of it being un-natural. that's the thing with the vostok ice. it has never ever happened this fast before. each time before it took thousands of years. and then suddenly we are supposed to believe that once we started pumping out co2 and vast vast quantities of it the global warming started and was at a much fatser rate than ever seen on this planet, and the two are totally un-connected.

but even making changes on the chance that this theory may be right isn't on the american agenda. because america likes the way it si right now and believing a theory the majority of scientists agree to and if true would cause catstrophic damage and huge loss of life.

and no subsidies are bad. when used to dump our over-produced goods on africa and destroy it's farmers. but if we make africa goods cheaper and stop driving down african prices and so their economies and people by our over and mass produced goods we may be able to start sorting things out.

africa does not need industrialisation. it needs food. and that isn't made in factories or with work shop conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

africa does not need industrialisation. it needs food. and that isn't made in factories or with work shop conditions.

---

They don't have industrialization now, and look how that has helped them.

you cannot industrialise a starving country. you cannot build factories when you are in debt. you cannot expect the starving to work.

they don't have industrialisation now. like the don't have much a agriculture left. what they do have left is starvation and misery. and none of this has helped anyone except some farmer in texas, france and devon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

you cannot industrialise a starving country. you cannot build factories when you are in debt. you cannot expect the starving to work.

they don't have industrialisation now. like the don't have much a agriculture left. what they do have left is starvation and misery. and none of this has helped anyone except some farmer in texas, france and devon.

---

Give me a plan that does not sacrifice the western world, and we can start from there.