h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Only a massive shift in attitudes will save humanity from a slow and lingering death. The earth will survive, it has seen much worse environmental disasters than mankind in the past. It has been hit by comets for Gods sake. The multi-nationals have no interest in the environment. The people who run them can afford to live in areas untouched by the garbage which us mere mortals have to wade through on a daily basis. Big companies are interested in one thing - big profits. It is the poor who suffer most from the destruction of the environment. Global capitalism has a vested interest in high population densities, destruction of forest and green belt areas, factory farming etc. This makes us more dependent on them for goods and services - which means more profit. Environmentalists are now seen as enemies of the state, hence the interest in their activities by the security services. The media (controled by the multi-nationals) always give environmental activists a bad press. Politicians (certainly in the UK) are seen as cranky if they follow a green agenda. John Prescott, our deputy PM is vilified for attempting policies encouraging people to use public transport. The trouble is - green politics makes most of us uncomfortable because we know that we will have to make material sacrifices. Most people are only interested in self - which is why humanity is on the brink of destruction.

There are lots of personal and global dangers in GMOs, but the really really scary thing is the background of the people who are developing them.

You'd assume that geneticists would be life scientists, wouldn't you? That they would have studied biology, ecosystems, and the environment, at least at school, and that they would have an understanding of how living systems work, whether that is the digestive system of an animal, or what used to be called the food chain.

Not so.

They are chemists.

They may have limited their studies to different kinds of maths physics and molecular chemistry, and never studied a living thing until they start modifying genes.

I was talking with a friend whose first degree was chemistry and whose second degree was ecology. She - like anyone who thinks about systems you do not need to look under a microscope to understand - is concerned about GMOs. She talked to a french chemist using modified bacteria in a chemical process. These bacteria are just washed away afterwards. When she challenged this person on the consequences of washing new bacteria into the world, the response was "Well you can worry about that if you want to".

So when "scientists say" something, the first question should always be: "what science do these scientists specialise in?"

Governments don't ask this question. They act as if they believe that all scientists know everything.

Part of the reason John Prescott is villified in the press when he harps on about public amd integrated transport policies is that he has and uses two official government cars - Jaguar saloons. Nice and comfortable on the inside but not known for being environmentally friendly.

I thought he was a British car enthusiast, and one was his, the other one going with the job.

Maybe, but it still isn't an evironmentally friendly image to portray when espousing the green transport cause.

Yes; but he is on a hiding to nothing (as we all are...?)

If you have an old car (and neither of his Jags is new) it will use more fuel per mile (Jags do what - 15mpg?)

So is it better to throw away the raw materials it is made of, and the resouces that were used to make it in order to buy a new car, (more materials, more resources) even if the new car gives you better fuel consumption? 6 and 2 threes, methinks.

The media like a cheap story and a short headline, and labled him accordingly.

Who'd want to drive a Jag anyway? They drive like barges, handle like torville and dean, are buggers to park, and gulp fuel.

(Tetchy, tetchy, tetchy today - this is a gloomy subject, so maybe I shouldn't be posting)

All true Girl called Ben. The old car could be recycled. A smaller car (cheaper to buy and more fuel efficient, so cheaper to run for the taxpayer) could then be used. How about getting him a taxi, Prince Philip uses one as one of his official cars.

Now the taxi idea is quite brilliant.

Does HRH actually own one, or does he say "call me a cab!" whenever he want's to pop out for a quick ouzo?

I'm pretty sure they actually own the thing. I seem to remember some press reports about it at the time. I think London Taxis have sold the probably spec'd up from your average black cab to quite a few dignitaries around the world.

Does he drive it, or sit in the back?

I love the idea of hailing a cab, and Phil the Greek saying to me "had that President Clinton in the back of the cab last week. Made me stop for a pizza half way to the airport. That Hillary's nice looking mind you. Now with the traffic the way it is I could go left here, and cut out that balls-up by Westminster..."

Hee hee.

That is a very good comment!

Thanx, Phil!