Are People Getting Nastier?

Author Information

lovefreespirits has 5 Published Articles

India,
Hry,
kkr,
Hno. 1197 , sector- 5 , UE,

Are People Getting Nastier?

Posted On : Mar-08-2011 | seen (457) times | Article Word Count : 1066 |

"The purpose of our life needs to be positive. We weren't born with the purpose of causing trouble, harming others." Dalai Lama.

In early 2011 the shooting of an Arizona Congresswoman sparked a debate the role of violent rhetoric in modern politics. The question was also discussed on both side of the Atlantic with regard to the debate concerning anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the resultant climate change. In Damien Carrington's blog on the UK Guardian website, the journalist reported the death threat that had been made to US climate scientist and also noted

"Phil Jones, the scientist at the heart of "climategate", also received death threats but the phenomenon is generally far less frequent in the UK. I have received a handful of threats by email and phone myself, which given my low profile is a measure of the extent of the problem. My better-known colleagues George Monbiot and Leo Hickman receive more."

Meanwhile in the US the Climate Progress site reported that one of the US citizens that had been accused of targeting Mr Hickman responded with "Climate Depot Response to Hickman: Flashback: Climategate Scientists 'deserve' public wrath: 'The bottom line is they were at ground zero perpetuating a con job of the illusion of a consensus' 'It's refreshing that they're finally getting a hostile reaction.'"

Clearly, there are many people who don't exactly walk in step with the Dalai Lama's philosophy.

One of the big challenges of being human is trying to work out what is "real". Certainly our senses have a role to play but they can be limited. Optical illusions abound, for example. Experiences aren't always that useful either. When I first moved to London the building I worked in fronted onto the square where a police officer was shot by someone inside the Libyan Embassy. The embassy was put under siege by the police in an attempt to arrest the perpetrator and it lasted for some days. As our building had an entrance to the rear that was not in sight line of the embassy, we were permitted to continue working in it through the siege period so long as we didn't use the rooms that over looked the actual square. Large blue tarpaulins were erected in the streets leading into the square making it impossible to see what might be going on. Eleven days after the shooting I went home from work and saw on the television news that the occupants had left the embassy and the country that day. I neither saw nor heard anything of the events despite being within 50 metres of them.

Trying to work out what is "real" led us to develop the scientific methodology. This works using a number of steps to consider problems and tries to make sense of them. It starts by it looking for previous explanations but if none can be found (or the scientist thinks they are wrong) then they come up with a hypothesis or conjecture. Then they try to deduce a prediction from that explanation so, if it is assumed that our new conjecture is true, what consequences follow? Then comes the testing. Tests need to be repeatable with the same results to be considered to be valid. What the scientist is looking for is test results that would have been predicted by the hypothesis given at the start. Once all that has been done, the scientist presents her findings to qualified colleagues for review. It is a pain staking process but one that has allowed us to develop and enjoy the industrial civilisation we have now. For centuries "science" and "progress" have gone hand in hand.

This all changes when it comes to Global Warming and the resultant climate change.

For the first time our understanding of the science of the world and ability to generate knowledge is producing not fun and exciting things like parachutes, airplanes, space rockets, consumer electronics or smart cars, it is telling us that we are on a head long course of destruction not only of industrial civilisation but possibly of life itself. Fixing the problem strikes right to the very heart of what it is to be human: how we relate as individuals to others in society, how we relate as one generation to the next.

In my analysis, the root of the problem (and the solution) lies in the most powerful and universal tool devised by humans: money. The capitalist system has been an effective (though not perfect) system for delivering present day pleasures but it has done so by fooling us into thinking that destroying the future is "rational behaviour" through the simple error of omitting to place any cost on using the Earth's resources and services. The source of that error is partially our shared imagination of what our relationship to the rest of the planet is (dominant) and partially time related. Capitalism only became possible following the invention of double entry booking in 15th century Italy. Unfortunately, at that time there were many fewer humans around and they had not discovered how to use fossil fuels in any great way. So, the system that seeks balance is, in fact, tilted. Businesses are well used to the idea that capital items used for production need to be depreciated to provide for their replacement at the end of their productive lives but the destruction of natural capital is ignored. We use the natural world because it is valuable and destroy it because it is free.

Correcting this error is no small task (hence the title of my book) but it is achievable by individuals working to effect change. There are allies, for example the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, hosted by UNEP with financial support from the European Commission, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Japan, but politicians are mostly swayed by their electorates. The partisanship of US and, increasing other democracies, is a good illustration of just how hard it is to find common ground but that should not deter us. The most amazing aspect of humans is how much more we can accomplish when we work together than apart.

I believe the protection of the accumulated wealth of the species, both in terms of material things and knowledge is worth that collaboration because if we do not, there is nothing left to compete for. Do you think we can rise above the vitriol and achieve that? Would finding climate change solutions not represent a positive purpose?

Re-Publish this Article

<h1>Are People Getting Nastier?</h1> Author: <a href='http://www.articleseen.com/profile_lovefreespirits.aspx'>lovefreespirits</a> In early 2011 the shooting of an Arizona Congresswoman sparked a debate the role of violent rhetoric in modern politics. The question was also discussed on both side of the Atlantic with regard to the debate concerning anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the resultant climate change. In Damien Carrington's blog on the UK Guardian website, the journalist reported the death threat that had been made to US climate scientist and also noted

"Phil Jones, the scientist at the heart of "climategate", also received death threats but the phenomenon is generally far less frequent in the UK. I have received a handful of threats by email and phone myself, which given my low profile is a measure of the extent of the problem. My better-known colleagues George Monbiot and Leo Hickman receive more."

Meanwhile in the US the Climate Progress site reported that one of the US citizens that had been accused of targeting Mr Hickman responded with "Climate Depot Response to Hickman: Flashback: Climategate Scientists 'deserve' public wrath: 'The bottom line is they were at ground zero perpetuating a con job of the illusion of a consensus' 'It's refreshing that they're finally getting a hostile reaction.'"

Clearly, there are many people who don't exactly walk in step with the Dalai Lama's philosophy.

One of the big challenges of being human is trying to work out what is "real". Certainly our senses have a role to play but they can be limited. Optical illusions abound, for example. Experiences aren't always that useful either. When I first moved to London the building I worked in fronted onto the square where a police officer was shot by someone inside the Libyan Embassy. The embassy was put under siege by the police in an attempt to arrest the perpetrator and it lasted for some days. As our building had an entrance to the rear that was not in sight line of the embassy, we were permitted to continue working in it through the siege period so long as we didn't use the rooms that over looked the actual square. Large blue tarpaulins were erected in the streets leading into the square making it impossible to see what might be going on. Eleven days after the shooting I went home from work and saw on the television news that the occupants had left the embassy and the country that day. I neither saw nor heard anything of the events despite being within 50 metres of them.

Trying to work out what is "real" led us to develop the scientific methodology. This works using a number of steps to consider problems and tries to make sense of them. It starts by it looking for previous explanations but if none can be found (or the scientist thinks they are wrong) then they come up with a hypothesis or conjecture. Then they try to deduce a prediction from that explanation so, if it is assumed that our new conjecture is true, what consequences follow? Then comes the testing. Tests need to be repeatable with the same results to be considered to be valid. What the scientist is looking for is test results that would have been predicted by the hypothesis given at the start. Once all that has been done, the scientist presents her findings to qualified colleagues for review. It is a pain staking process but one that has allowed us to develop and enjoy the industrial civilisation we have now. For centuries "science" and "progress" have gone hand in hand.

This all changes when it comes to Global Warming and the resultant climate change.

For the first time our understanding of the science of the world and ability to generate knowledge is producing not fun and exciting things like parachutes, airplanes, space rockets, consumer electronics or smart cars, it is telling us that we are on a head long course of destruction not only of industrial civilisation but possibly of life itself. Fixing the problem strikes right to the very heart of what it is to be human: how we relate as individuals to others in society, how we relate as one generation to the next.

In my analysis, the root of the problem (and the solution) lies in the most powerful and universal tool devised by humans: money. The capitalist system has been an effective (though not perfect) system for delivering present day pleasures but it has done so by fooling us into thinking that destroying the future is "rational behaviour" through the simple error of omitting to place any cost on using the Earth's resources and services. The source of that error is partially our shared imagination of what our relationship to the rest of the planet is (dominant) and partially time related. Capitalism only became possible following the invention of double entry booking in 15th century Italy. Unfortunately, at that time there were many fewer humans around and they had not discovered how to use fossil fuels in any great way. So, the system that seeks balance is, in fact, tilted. Businesses are well used to the idea that capital items used for production need to be depreciated to provide for their replacement at the end of their productive lives but the destruction of natural capital is ignored. We use the natural world because it is valuable and destroy it because it is free.

Correcting this error is no small task (hence the title of my book) but it is achievable by individuals working to effect change. There are allies, for example the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, hosted by UNEP with financial support from the European Commission, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Japan, but politicians are mostly swayed by their electorates. The partisanship of US and, increasing other democracies, is a good illustration of just how hard it is to find common ground but that should not deter us. The most amazing aspect of humans is how much more we can accomplish when we work together than apart.

I believe the protection of the accumulated wealth of the species, both in terms of material things and knowledge is worth that collaboration because if we do not, there is nothing left to compete for. Do you think we can rise above the vitriol and achieve that? Would finding climate change solutions not represent a positive purpose?About the Author: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://earthgreen9.com/">Go Green|Green Earth</a> Article Source: <a href='http://www.articleseen.com/Article_Are-People-Getting-Nastier_55084.aspx'> http://www.articleseen.com/Article_Are People Getting Nastier?_55084.aspx</a>

Article Source : http://www.articleseen.com/Article_Are People Getting Nastier?_55084.aspx

Author Resource :

Go Green|Green Earth

Keywords : save environment, save earth, go green, global warming facts, climate change,

Category : Arts and Entertainment : Arts and Entertainment

Print this Article Send to Friend