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

how is it working? Productive members of society? Maybe I'm missing something...could you please direct me to some place that conclusively says that this helps them and actually gets them off the heroine? Besides, what does this do to *prevent* heroine addics from *becoming* heroine addics in the first place.

Niz, the problem with that idea is that the resolution can be vetoed by the (surprise surprise) US. Now if all the countries themselves were to do it individually that'd be a different story. But considering the amount of money we give in "aid packages"(what a crock of..) to the rest of the world why don't you use that?

Crescent;
are you talking about Tasmania, Australia? or where? (sorry to be so ignorant about these things)

There is a few plus points of the heroine program. The first is that the stuff is of a known purity (the number of ODs drops dramatically), it is normally taken at a supervised location (the number of OD deaths is then able to be stopped). The heroine addict does not have to pay through the nose, so does not have to turn to crime to get the stuff (the cost of diamorphine is pennies). The lack of spending a huge amount of cash, means that they can afford a home. The steady supply of diamorphine means that there is no running around ragged for the stuff, enabling the user to get a job. They get a job, pay their taxes, do not commit crimes - hmmm damn close to a productive member of society The steady life makes it a lot easier for them to get off heroine. It doesn't do anything to stop them becoming heroine addicts in the first place - but then again what is going on now isn't doing anything either. Heroine in the US is cheaper, and more pure than ever before, there are more addicts now than ever before, more deaths from OD, HIV infection and poisoning (impurities added to make more money) now than ever before. Oh yeah what is going on now is REALLY working well.

I will point you to places (however the URL thing bugs) so if you go to the my URL page at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A516944

Hope this helps Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

Yep, that is the Tasmania (at least that was the one I thought they were talking about ) Hope this helps Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

This sort of thing could go on forever. For every episode of bad diplomacy by the US, I could counter it with one for .

Wow. This thread has drifted a bit since I last looked. Despite all the agro expressed between a small number of Americans, Europeans and Antipodeans, it looks as though everyone feels Bush should be making the effort to cut emissions. Have I missed anything? Has anyone expressed the opinion that Bush is doing the right thing, in pulling out of the Kyoto protocol? If there's a general consensus of opinion between the Americans in this thread that the US should be reducing their output of greenhouse gasses, it would be interesting to find out whether any of you voted for the Bush team. Did any of you American h2g2ers vote for him? If so, are you surprised or disappointed in his decision?

I'm not old enough to vote but I wouldn't have voted *for* him, rather I would have voted against Gore. I'm disapointed in his decision but happy that he is goind to spend more on the military. 1/8 of the military on welfare is pathetic.

Crecent: I doubt that what you are saying happens all that much... if it did, then more than just one other country would be activly trying doing it. (I'm going to check out your link now...)

Botheration Yowuzupman. Now you're tempting me off topic. I can't resist though. Why would the American military be on welfare? Surely they get paid a decent salary. I've heard the Russian army goes for months on end without getting paid, but it's news (astonishing news at that) that American's in the same boat.

I believe we do have a concensus on that one point. Regardless of how dire the consequences may or may not be, Dubya is wrong to start lifting ecological standards.

I don't waste my vote on the opponent of the candidate I hate the least. I vote for the one I like best. My 2000 ballot was cast for Harry Browne.

I'm really curious about where you got the data indicating 1/8 of the US militaray is on welfare? If I were you I'd check outthe myriad of web pages devoted to all the benefits that the US armed services is eligible for...they are called "Welfare, Morale and recreation" benefits but they are NOT welfare in the sense of what unemployed workers get... rather they are free travel for soldiers and their families, vacation spots where military personell get huge discounts, etc. In addition, the US armed services receive a sign up bonus that can either be in cash or be applied for tuition on top of the fact that the US military pays for 75% of tuition costs while personell is in school. I'm not disputing that the members of the uniformed services are deserving of these perks... after all these people ostensibly risk their lives in defense of their country. I do however find your citation of the welfare data rather peculiar since tha base pay for an unmarried private in the US army exceeds to poverty levels as defined by the US govt.

I have no comment on the issue but I want to congratulate Ariel for posting an opinion!

Sorrry to back track, but ...
Payment of UN Dues, difference between USA & Russia is ability to pay.
I belive the reason the USA is not paying is that it is unhappy with the amount its asked to pay. Not let me ask those in the USA a question, if you were unhappy about the level of tax you were paying & refused to pay what would the goverments reaction be ?

I'm slow at getting back here, but apology cheerily accepted, my abbreviated avian.

Now for another couple pence' worth.

I'm generally along with the Colonel on these issues it seems. I'm not so sure there IS a problem, but I'm pretty sure that eventually there COULD be a problem. And to my way of thinking, it is far better to prepare for a potentially very bad problem than to wait until it's a crisis so we can hook our thumbs under our suspenders, lean back and give a low whistle and say, "woooo weeee, I sure didn't think it would be THAT bad" before laying all the blame on the "younger generation" for screwing up all our hard work. "Things were so much better back in MY day."

My job involves lots of risk analysis, and I find the logic applicable to many areas. So, to my way of thinking, whenever a decision is to be made, a crossroads reached, the best decision is the one that truly has the least risk. Risk is a combination of probability and consequence. It's a natural way to think, and we use it all the time, whether we realize it or not. For example, the probability of being involved in an airline accident of a serious nature is a relatively low number, but the consequence is terrifying to contemplate. Some much more than others, and thus certain people elect to never fly at all, frequently saying something like "it's just too dangerous." What that means is that they have determined, for themselves, that the risk is too high; the consequences is simply unacceptable (or perhaps they just don't believe the statistics or perhaps a bit of both).

This is how people should make decisions regarding environmental policy, in my opinion. What is the risk involved with the outcomes of the given decision? Well, the risk is (being a combination of frequency/probability and consequence) something that can be analytically determined IF (and only if) the probabilities involved are accurate enough and the consequences well-known. This is where it gets monstrously difficult when it comes to concerns about the incredibly complex systems that make up our environment. We still can't tell enough about what goes on to give appropriately accurate predictions on what the weather is going to be like next WEEK, let alone how our environment will (or even IS) affected by our actions.

Some environmentalists might already be marking my name down in the little black hate books, just because I might appear to be repeating the so-called "corporate rhetoric" that is so hated. I'm not just repeating that stuff - I hate it too, because it's used as an excuse to not think or do proper scientific work.

My view is that while we do not know enough to make accurate determinations of the risk of the outcomes of our decisions and livestyles, we *do* know enough to estimate that risk. Each estimate can furthermore be graded as to how reliable it is based on the amount of data - a "confidence level" as we say. This is how major decisions in risky business (no, not the movie) such as nuclear power/research and dangerous chemical manufacture/production is handled. When data to accurately determine probability/frequency or consequence is not well known through studies, experiments, and historic data, an estimation must be made. This doesn't happen as often as one might think, as there is just too much at stake to simply estimate things of such importance. This is why so many studies have been made.

It seems to me that the much wider-scope, broad base and complicated system that is our entire planet would require far far more effort, time, and money to study and understand. This seems like a simple "go forth and do it" type of thing, but it isn't (sadly) that easy. I don't for a minute believe it's beyond our capability as a race to understand the whole thing (some might say we already do, though I think I'd be able to debunk that with little effort), but in the meantime we may continue to affect our planet in adverse ways.

There's no reason to panic, however. But then again, there's also a very good reason not to merrily chug along fat, dumb, and happy, as the expression goes, humming a ditty as if we were Mr. Magoo driving a tank with his finger on the trigger. That reason is that the potential for grave consequences still exists. It's hard for people to naturally accept thinking in terms of dynamic or changing probabilities - but in our modern society, with the speed that knew knowledge comes forth (sometimes with inappropriate speed, as the knowledge turns out to be erroneous or inaccurate after more time is given to the subject), it isn't unusual for knowledge to come about that has the potential to change our everyday life every five years. A century ago, such a thing might have happened once in a generation (which was also, quite a bit shorter than today's standards). If this acceleration trend continues, it's feasible that we'll be hearing so much about "new knowledge" and "new scientific evidence" and "new studies" that we'll become desensitized to it all, and either focus in on the bits we have more vested interest in or just ignore it completely. (I'm of the opinion this is happening a great deal already).

The path before us is plain: we need to learn to think in terms of the big picture by determining risk when we can, estimating it when we can't, and always use risk to shape our decision making process, particularly at the highest levels. Complex, yes - but so complex that we can't do it? I don't think so. Nothing is so complex we can't understand it, given enough time and effort - some things are so complex they may take us forever to understand them, in which case we have to estimate, put things in simpler terms. We're already doing that, and it's the subject of a lot of debate - but times and circumstances change, and we need to be prepared to change with them. It's irresponsible, dangerous, and illogical to expect that we can go on putting off the inevitable forever as if we were teenagers with a no-limit credit card for which the bill never arrives.

The real thing that needs to be recognized by each and every one of us is that the potential exists for great harm to be done to our home; harm that could affect us all. Each and every one of us, but especially those of us that enjoy the highest standards of living, need to recognize the responsibility we have to the future of our planet and be prepared to make sacrifices and lifestyle changes to that end. As I said, I personally think there is no need to panic - and this is what annoys me most about those that would have us panic to further their own narrow-minded ends - but the risk is high enough that there's no reason to continue spending spree society activities. I feel the Union will not need to go into recession to save the world, and I'm confident that a compromising means of energy (most particularly energy distribution as people have pointed out) can be had for the time being that avoids serious long term consequences on both the economy and the environment of the USA and our world. I'm not so confident that such lifestyle changes that are necessary in our culture as we mature past our heady days of adolescent credit-card spending spree style of resource management on into the adulthood of taking responsibility for our actions, and making more well-thought out decisions.

I think I'm done now. That's what I get for 2 days' of silence, heh - all comes out at once. Cheers ...

I'm finally through this whole thread, and indeed it has wandered! I'll restrain myself and stick with the original topic ... uhm. somewhat. Heh. In answer to Shorn Canary (I'd try another cute alliterative version of the nick, but I can't think of one right now), I did vote for Bush, and I'm finding myself slightly disappointed with his overall performance so far. Although I am far closer to Libertarian than any other political party, I'm not a terribly big fan of Harry Browne for reasons that I won't go into here - I am not a fan of Al Gore's whatsoever. Perhaps I am guilty of what the Colonel said he never does: vote for the most likely one to prevent the man I dislike most from getting into office. *sigh* Seems like an all-too-common scenario these days.

Ariel, it's when you have kids....also below

from my friend Jeff, who is in JROTC and his parents who work in Defense, this came from an article talking of how our military is over paid (I know you and I are not arguing this point but it makes my point of how easy it is for them to be on welfare):

If Airman Bragg (network techie) makes $10,490.00 per year (after taxes); working 50 of the 52 weeks each year, working an average 5 day work week, each day working 12 hours per shift, how many pennies does Airman Bragg earn per hour ? Answer: Based upon Ms. Williams' view point, an "over paid" 300 pennies (a whole $3.00 per hour).

from research:
current mil pay
grade E-15-----7.10
true, they do get some discounts at the PX and the Commissary, but I can buy it for cheeper at walmart!

BTW, the 1/8 (or similar numbers as high as 1/4 although I doubt that one) I got from the O'Reilly Factor, the Washington times and post and some others(although it appears none of these have it readily avalible to find it... interesting)

I hate to interrupt the present conversation by being nitpicky, but I think the title of this forum should be "Americans, Cheney, and Global Warming". Because, after all, Bush has gone back on campaign promises--such as reducing carbon dioxide emissions--as they apply to environmental issues per VP Dick Cheney's advice.

Is anyone really surprised? All one has to do is look at his past environmental record in Texas. He is never going to go along with any global compromises or standards set at Kyoto or anywhere else. After all, polluting industries contributed heavily to his campaign. Now they expect--and are getting--their money's worth.

Well, the American public got what it voted for...at least the 49% of them who voted for Bush. Personally, I think Bush is nothing more than a figurehead for a government comprised mostly of his father's cabinet members (i.e., Cheney). Though I must say that this was mitigated somewhat today, when the Senate passed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Some Republicans still have morals, it seems.

Grrrr!

i am (in a staying up too late at the computer kind of way) very very angry with George W Bush for reneaging on such an important treaty. the man cleary has no sense of national honour, or responsibility to the future. Global warming and pollution are clearly real problems - and one only needs to take a look at his home state of texas to see what happens when pollutants can act with impunity.

The costs of pollution are real - they just don't show up on the balance sheet. the inability of businesses to account for their usage and abuses of the natural resources we are blessed with is simply a criminal act of theft. it is our children and grandchildren who will pay for the idiocy of this generation - and especially the US - who blatently disregard the consequences of thier actions.

i know i'm not being very eloquent, I am too angry for that. BTW - the Utopia Cafebar is kind of my place, and you can find a new thread for bush related rants here http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F57346

lots of love, (except to Dubya)

purplejenny

can I just ask those who voted/would have voted against/not a fan of Al Gore, why you didn't like him? From an outsider's point of view, apart from his connections with some business or other, he seemed to stand for what I would consider pretty good policies, ie more money for health cover and education? I would have thought the collective needs were more important than individual tax cuts. And did he support the death penalty? Wouldn't make much of a difference though, seeing as Bush definately does.

(once again, sorry off track)

I've been gone a whole day (imagine!) and would like to comment on several posts.

1. I DID NOT vote for the Bush-baby. I voted for Gore, and was not enormously pleased with him, either, but figured he had the best chance of beating Bush. I point to the closeness of the eventual results in that election as an example of what happens when a whole nation holds its nose and votes.

2. I would like to see what comes of an attempt to correlate the times of prior mass species extinctions (there have been many) with periods of global warming. Is there anyone here who has a background or more than a casual acquaintance with geology/chemisty/climatology who could give me an idea where to go about checking this out?

3. I do not consider the current concern about global warming to be panicy impulsiveness. The window of action may be 30 or 50 years ahead, but in geologic time, this is instantaneous. No one has yet proposed a plan to get the treaty ratified. Taxing the US to enforce compliance will do as much good as billing the US for UN dues.

4. Obviously Bush is owned by his corporate sponsors. The fact that the campaign reform act was passed does not mean things will change. It puts an end to "soft money" but as far as direct donations go, the Republicans have always been able to collect more donations from their party than the Democrats, Libertarians, etc. The individual Republican tends to have more disposable income than the members of the other parties. The bill just passed may have ended the use of "soft money" but it also raised the individual direct contribution limit, and as stated before, more Republicans donate individually than members of the other parties because they can afford to. Now they can donate more individually. Higher donation limits times more donors equals more money to the Republican party than the other parties. No skin off their nose that it passed.

I'm going off-line now, after having contributed quite a "drunkard's walk" of my own!

SC