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

i'm not sure if you are referring to what i wrote but i will clarify anyway.

i certainly don't believe that nature is whole only if people aren't in it. i think humans are as much a part of nature as anything else. part of the reason we are in such an environmental mess is because of dominant paradigms, particularly in the west, that humans somehow operate outside of nature.

what i was saying about wilderness is that i believe there is something inherent in 'wild' that is very important. if i was to describe wild i might say at this point that it is what is self generating in nature and is currently beyond the capacity of humans to intentionally create (though this isn't definitive. it is something i and many others experience but i haven't had to put it in words before). while i don't believe we can create wilderness, we can certainly manipulate or at least allow the conditions in which wilderness may (re)arise.

i agree that there is very little in nature that is untouched by human activity. i also know that there are still substantial parts of the planet where wilderness is the dominant force at work (note that i am not saying wilderness and nature are exaclty the same thing). i think this 'force' or energy of wilderness is incredibly important to preserve. for its own sake (in the same way that all of nature, *including* humans, deserve to be honoured for their own sake). and also because we need it.

what i don't agree with is human greed devouring the last remants of wilderness left. we have the technology and the knowledge to take care of all humans on the planet without doing this. what i see is lacking is the will. i don't see why other aspects of nature should suffer because of this.

having said all that, there is something specific about humans, our consciousness and our actions that is very unusual in nature. i don't know what to make of this.

~~~

i think its important to differentiate between refugees and immigrants. or at least to define the terms so we know what we are referring to.

"i think its important to differentiate between refugees and immigrants. or at least to define the terms so we know what we are referring to."


Why? Why should we look at the motives of people who want to relocate? Should it matter if someone wants to relocate because of war or because they want a different climate?

i think someone who's life is at risk has way more priority than someone who wants a change of climate.

"i think someone who's life is at risk has way more priority than someone who wants a change of climate."


You'd think it'll be the case, wouldn't you?

Neugen, i'm not sure what you are saying - would you be able to clarify? do you think there should be no controls on migration?

what part of the world are you in btw?

I was mearly saying that logic would dictate priority for those most at risk. The reality is that priority is often set based on the earning potential of an immigrant. You'll find the trend common to most 1st world countries following the pattern of: business leaders 1st, followed by other skilled workers and refugees last.

The question of controls should really be a question of process: should there be a process for immigration: yes. This process should address practical issues such as health, education and financial support as much as humanitarian issues.

The question of immigration is somewhat off the original topic of the thread.


I'd like to get back to that topic by asking a question. I believe that one of the strongest points thet Moore made in the documentary is regarding the role of fear. Fear as a tool is still being used by the US and Britain in recent days as they deployed armed forces to guard against possible terrorist attacks as well as issuing numerous warnings about these attacks.

Personally, I see this as nothing more then an attempt to scare the population. The role of the government should not be to tell people how scared they should be, but rather take actions to ensure the threat never materializes in the first place. So the question is: what is the role of the government in relation to spreading news about *possible* terrorist attacks?

such is the level of alternate opinion- verging on conspiracy theory sometimes- that folk are either terrified or disbelieve it on grounds that the government is telling them. Same with basic medical advice; some believe it's not true because it's down to removal of personal freedoms instead.
I don't get scared by news, regardless of content.

"such is the level of alternate opinion- verging on conspiracy theory sometimes- that folk are either terrified or disbelieve it on grounds that the government is telling them."



The disbelief stems from the fact that many prior such alerts have resulted in nothing. The government(s) defend the absence of something by saying that if anything did happen, they could not tell you anyway due to security issues --> and the conspiracy theories are born.

Kea - Seems we're fairly similar in views of the environment, in not so many words.

There's a recent article on DU http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/15_serious.html that tends to give credence to conspiracy theories...

NYC

or quite a few words in my case



i'm unsubscribing now 'cos i haven't seen the michael moore film yet and i feel like i keep taking things off track.

thanks,
kea

>> I believe that one of the strongest points thet Moore made in the documentary is regarding the role of fear.

I agree, although I believe it was Marilyn Manson who actually made that point explicitly in the film. And what he said was that fear makes people consume, which is so true. And not only material things, but ideas. People will "buy in" to whatever policy you want to pursue if you can successfully instill fear. No better way of shoring up a falling economy than by introducing an exciting new enemy!

I'm not sure about the impact of fear on the economy. Usually when a war is about to begin, stockmarkets and consumer spending go down. Of course the military industry does benefit.
For Bush war is good though. It keeps the attention away from where he is failing. His tax reforms are a joke, if I understand them right. And the economy is suffering from all kinds of things. This isn't all his fault though.
There is nothing better for a leader than a war. That's when people need a leader, and they are going to stand behind him no matter what.

"I agree, although I believe it was Marilyn Manson who actually made that point explicitly in the film. And what he said was that fear makes people consume, which is so true."


Not sure if I buy the idea that fear makes you consume. Although we do need to distinguish between your general, run-of-the-mill fear and war. Saying that, I'm pretty sure the sales duct tape and plastic sheeting have shot up.

Fear certainly does make you look towards leadership. As such, it gives the leaders an opportunity to take advantage of the situation to pass "questionable" economic and civil liberty legistlation.

To back up my point:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=580&e=1&cid=580&u=/nm/20030217/bs_nm/retail_sales_dc

"Wal-Mart Sales on Track, Snow Nips Others

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said on Monday an unlikely mix of lingerie and duct tape drove sales last week, but a big snow storm that whacked the eastern United States is threatening to leave many retailers in the cold this week."

Blackstar.co.uk are taking advanced orders on Bowling for Columbine now.

Not sure if this would still be yoinked for being a commercial link but go look for yourselves - you'll find it easy enough if you search.

Clive.

DVD's coming out for sale on April 22 here, which is quite the wait - not to mention quite the market for bootleggers.