There have been lots of articles in the newspapers recently which are reporting that Global Warming has stopped. I wish it had but I am not celebrating.
Deniers of anthropomorphic climate change are again cherry picking the data. The rate of increase in global warming has slowed down it has not stopped. Why is this? The oceans are transferring heat from the atmosphere to the lower regions of oceanic water.
The oceans sometimes release back heat into the atmosphere especially during El Nino events. The trend for the atmosphere is to show an inexorable rise in temperatures as the concentration of greenhouse gases.
increases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/has-global-warming-stopped-no--its-just-on-pause-insist-scientists-and-its-down-to-the-oceans-8726893.html
Climate models are inaccurate but we can look back into the past to see how the Earth reacted when it came out of or back into an ice age. The temperature did not gradually rise or fall. When we came out of the last ice age and there was a long term trend when temperatures were rising we saw reversals and temporary lapses into ice age conditions. These changes happened rapidly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
The same thing could happen in the future so we play with climate change at our peril. Pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere will have dangerous consequences if not for our generation then for the ones to follow.
What a great legacy to leave to our grandchildren.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Monday, 15 July 2013
Community Enterprises
There has been a failure of global corporate capitalism to meet the needs of the societies which they serve. The economic collapse resulting from the 2007 international banking crisis nearly brought the world economy to its knees. We faced a dangerous economic, political and social situation.
At the moment there are increasing numbers of people in the western world who are relying on food handouts. The poor people of the third world are working in conditions which are almost tantamount to economic slavery. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Wealth is not cascading down from top to bottom.
The redistribution of wealth promised by traditionalist economists and politicians has meant wealth being taken from the poor and the middle classes and being re-distributed to the super wealthy. Global corporations have not been held to account by our governments and politicians
Had there been a complete economic failure, who knows what would have happened? There could have been unwanted violence on the streets and divisions among the nation states which could have lead to new war. There are certainly parallels and lessons to be learnt from the experiences of the 1920's, '30's and '40's and we are still not out of the woods. It is quite possible that the current economic model is self-destructive.
I am not arguing a case for some form of communism or public ownership of all enterprises. We need healthy economies driven by some sort of free enterprise to provide the wealth which allows all of our citizens to thrive and be healthy. We therefore need enterprise which meets the needs of our communities to ensure that everyone has a fair stake in the wealth of society and that everyone who wants to work or start an enterprise has the opportunity to do so.
Capitalism is not an economic system which is based on some sort of state of natural affairs. It is a creation of the human mind and it has been allowed to flourish by the consent of our society. Our community allows for the legal, social and economic framework for joint stock and limited liability companies to exist but we have allowed some companies to trade solely for the generation of profit for the shareholders.
Companies should take into account all of the stakeholders of the society which allows them to operate. If capitalism fails it could quite easily be replaced by something unpalatable for all of us. Therefore there is an obligation for global corporations to improve their act.
There is also an obligation for our society to provide other means of creating wealth; means which are outside of the orbit of both global capitalism, state capitalism and communism.
Let us examine the following example. My wife and I went into a woman's clothes shop the other day to buy a pair of ladies trousers. There was a pair on sale at the reduced price of £90. These trousers were of exceptionally poor quality; they were for fashion only. Normally they were on sale for much more. They had been made in a third world garment factory.
They were probably made and transported to the UK for a cost of about £5. Where did the bulk of gross profit margin of £85 go ?
I opine that it did not go to garment factory workers in the third world. It did not go to a worker in the UK as most of the garment industry has gone out of business here. It did not go to the shop's retail staff. I suggest that the transport companies did not take much of the margin. So who is left to take the money?
The margin, I suggest, has gone to marketing companies and international retailing conglomerates.
This economic model does not really serve the communities in the third world that produce the garments nor the UK manufacturers who have gone out of business as a result of the transfer of capital and the means of production.
At a local business network meeting I met an entrepreneur who wants to change this business model so that it serves the community. He sells garments which are made in the UK and these garments cost much more to make than they would in a third world sweat shop. He sells the garments to University students for a fair price which is much less than the price of the fashion trousers described above. His margin is fair.
He wants to share some of the profits of the enterprise with the community. He wants to be a millionaire and deserves to be. He is not interested in becoming a multimillionaire or a global capitalist. He also believes in free enterprise in the genuine sense of the word. He is not interest in living in a business world dominated by oligarchs and monopolies. Adam Smith would be proud of him.
Some of his business colleagues have tried to convince him that it is best to have his garments made in the third world. He is not interested in this as he wants to help British industry. After all, we are a world of nation states but this model could be repeated in any country to the benefit of the local community.
This business model allows for the trickle down effect to to support the workers in the industry and other businesses in the community. It is a model which allows for private enterprise, the community and workers or even unions to invest in the company and become stakeholders and investors.
Such business models could run alongside traditional capitalist industries such as car making, electronics and telecommunications. It would not replace global capitalism but would provide an alternative form of economic activity which is more stable and sustainable and one which serves the community. Community enterprises could also fill in the gap if global corporate capitalism fails; it would be ready to form a backstop.
The Community would be able to guarantee that essential services are maintained and that everyone is fully employed.
Do you want to live in a world where global corporations dictate what economic model we live by?
Do you want to live in a world where third world sweat shops are used to make cheap goods which are sold in the richer economies at an exorbitant profit margin?
Do you want large supermarkets to dictate to farmers how food should be produced and at what cost?
Do you want your local high street to be full of charity shops?
Do you want essential services, such as care for the elderly, to be under the complete control of large corporations?
Or, would you rather?
Live in a world where large corporations are held to account by a strong democratic government and operate in the best interests of themselves and the community.
Third world workers are given fair wages and working conditions.
Farmers are given a fair deal and local retail shops are encouraged to thrive.
Local services are controlled and owned by the communities they serve in co-operation with local entrepreneurs.
Global capitalism has served us well in some instances; the electronics and software industries are classic examples. I am not advocating that this form of enterprise is abolished. But we could control our economies far better if there was an improved mix of different forms of enterprise. Everyone could benefit from this - including large corporations.
Is it not time that our traditional political parties, unions, and other political and economic groups sat up and thought of a democratic alternative to what we have now?
The public also have a role to play by supporting enterprises and ideas which will change the economic model.
It is time for a change and it is possible to create and encourage new forms of enterprise using a legal, social and economic framework that does not impinge on anyone's individual freedom or rights.
At the moment there are increasing numbers of people in the western world who are relying on food handouts. The poor people of the third world are working in conditions which are almost tantamount to economic slavery. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Wealth is not cascading down from top to bottom.
The redistribution of wealth promised by traditionalist economists and politicians has meant wealth being taken from the poor and the middle classes and being re-distributed to the super wealthy. Global corporations have not been held to account by our governments and politicians
Had there been a complete economic failure, who knows what would have happened? There could have been unwanted violence on the streets and divisions among the nation states which could have lead to new war. There are certainly parallels and lessons to be learnt from the experiences of the 1920's, '30's and '40's and we are still not out of the woods. It is quite possible that the current economic model is self-destructive.
I am not arguing a case for some form of communism or public ownership of all enterprises. We need healthy economies driven by some sort of free enterprise to provide the wealth which allows all of our citizens to thrive and be healthy. We therefore need enterprise which meets the needs of our communities to ensure that everyone has a fair stake in the wealth of society and that everyone who wants to work or start an enterprise has the opportunity to do so.
Capitalism is not an economic system which is based on some sort of state of natural affairs. It is a creation of the human mind and it has been allowed to flourish by the consent of our society. Our community allows for the legal, social and economic framework for joint stock and limited liability companies to exist but we have allowed some companies to trade solely for the generation of profit for the shareholders.
Companies should take into account all of the stakeholders of the society which allows them to operate. If capitalism fails it could quite easily be replaced by something unpalatable for all of us. Therefore there is an obligation for global corporations to improve their act.
There is also an obligation for our society to provide other means of creating wealth; means which are outside of the orbit of both global capitalism, state capitalism and communism.
Let us examine the following example. My wife and I went into a woman's clothes shop the other day to buy a pair of ladies trousers. There was a pair on sale at the reduced price of £90. These trousers were of exceptionally poor quality; they were for fashion only. Normally they were on sale for much more. They had been made in a third world garment factory.
They were probably made and transported to the UK for a cost of about £5. Where did the bulk of gross profit margin of £85 go ?
I opine that it did not go to garment factory workers in the third world. It did not go to a worker in the UK as most of the garment industry has gone out of business here. It did not go to the shop's retail staff. I suggest that the transport companies did not take much of the margin. So who is left to take the money?
The margin, I suggest, has gone to marketing companies and international retailing conglomerates.
This economic model does not really serve the communities in the third world that produce the garments nor the UK manufacturers who have gone out of business as a result of the transfer of capital and the means of production.
At a local business network meeting I met an entrepreneur who wants to change this business model so that it serves the community. He sells garments which are made in the UK and these garments cost much more to make than they would in a third world sweat shop. He sells the garments to University students for a fair price which is much less than the price of the fashion trousers described above. His margin is fair.
He wants to share some of the profits of the enterprise with the community. He wants to be a millionaire and deserves to be. He is not interested in becoming a multimillionaire or a global capitalist. He also believes in free enterprise in the genuine sense of the word. He is not interest in living in a business world dominated by oligarchs and monopolies. Adam Smith would be proud of him.
Some of his business colleagues have tried to convince him that it is best to have his garments made in the third world. He is not interested in this as he wants to help British industry. After all, we are a world of nation states but this model could be repeated in any country to the benefit of the local community.
This business model allows for the trickle down effect to to support the workers in the industry and other businesses in the community. It is a model which allows for private enterprise, the community and workers or even unions to invest in the company and become stakeholders and investors.
Such business models could run alongside traditional capitalist industries such as car making, electronics and telecommunications. It would not replace global capitalism but would provide an alternative form of economic activity which is more stable and sustainable and one which serves the community. Community enterprises could also fill in the gap if global corporate capitalism fails; it would be ready to form a backstop.
The Community would be able to guarantee that essential services are maintained and that everyone is fully employed.
Do you want to live in a world where global corporations dictate what economic model we live by?
Do you want to live in a world where third world sweat shops are used to make cheap goods which are sold in the richer economies at an exorbitant profit margin?
Do you want large supermarkets to dictate to farmers how food should be produced and at what cost?
Do you want your local high street to be full of charity shops?
Do you want essential services, such as care for the elderly, to be under the complete control of large corporations?
Or, would you rather?
Live in a world where large corporations are held to account by a strong democratic government and operate in the best interests of themselves and the community.
Third world workers are given fair wages and working conditions.
Farmers are given a fair deal and local retail shops are encouraged to thrive.
Local services are controlled and owned by the communities they serve in co-operation with local entrepreneurs.
Global capitalism has served us well in some instances; the electronics and software industries are classic examples. I am not advocating that this form of enterprise is abolished. But we could control our economies far better if there was an improved mix of different forms of enterprise. Everyone could benefit from this - including large corporations.
Is it not time that our traditional political parties, unions, and other political and economic groups sat up and thought of a democratic alternative to what we have now?
The public also have a role to play by supporting enterprises and ideas which will change the economic model.
It is time for a change and it is possible to create and encourage new forms of enterprise using a legal, social and economic framework that does not impinge on anyone's individual freedom or rights.
Friday, 5 July 2013
Two Wrongs Do Not Make An Egyptian Right
In my opinion there can be no justification for the military in overthrowing a democratically elected government. There is no justification for the arrest of key members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
The Muslim Brotherhood after all were the strongest peaceful opposition to military rule in Egypt over the course of many years.
It is my view that the best form of government is a secular democracy which has all the checks and balances needed to ensure a fair society and the rights of everyone. To impose a theocracy does not guarantee this and it is clear that a substantial number of Egyptians, although religious, do not want a state run by clerics.
The best course of action would be for the military to remain loyal to the Egyptian electorate and desist from intervention.
Egyptian religious leaders should support a secular and democratic constitution and remove themselves from politics.
This is the best method of assuring the rights of everyone and the peace.
The Muslim Brotherhood after all were the strongest peaceful opposition to military rule in Egypt over the course of many years.
It is my view that the best form of government is a secular democracy which has all the checks and balances needed to ensure a fair society and the rights of everyone. To impose a theocracy does not guarantee this and it is clear that a substantial number of Egyptians, although religious, do not want a state run by clerics.
The best course of action would be for the military to remain loyal to the Egyptian electorate and desist from intervention.
Egyptian religious leaders should support a secular and democratic constitution and remove themselves from politics.
This is the best method of assuring the rights of everyone and the peace.
Monday, 3 June 2013
State of Nature Report
Yesterday and today I was reading the RSPB State of Nature Report on UK Plants and Animals; it makes depressing reading. Of the 3,168 species of plants and animals, which were part of the sample, there has been a 60% decline in their abundance during the last 50 years. Furthermore there has been a strong decline of abundance for 31% of the species.
What is more disturbing is that 1 in 10 of a sample of 6,000 species is under the threat of extinction. There has been a a threat to the numbers and range of a number of species especially those which have specific environmental requirements.
Most environments ranging from coastal to uplands have been affected especially meadows where there has been a 97% reduction of area which is no defined as "meadow". Fenland and mires are being drained and peat bogs are also being replaced by forests.
Some of our most familiar and iconic species are disappearing fast such as sparrows and skylarks. Recently, I took a walk through a golf course on the north Norfolk coast and I was pleasantly surprised to see and hear a dozen skylarks. The skylark is now a rare sight elsewhere, however.
Some species such as the red kite and the otter have extended their range and numbers but the success of some species has been more than compensated for by the demise of many others.
When I was a youth growing up in West Wales in the 1950s and 1960s there were large flocks of lapwings feeding on the farmland. Now I rarely see a lapwing when I pay a visit.
The estuary of the the Western and Eastern Cleddau rivers or Aberdaugleddau was regularly filled with massive shoals of herring; the local fishermen used small boats coated with black tar waterproofing to catch prodigious supplies of the fish. There are hardly any herring left in the estuary now and any that are are caught with a line rather than a net.
Industrialised fishing has made the local herring shoals almost extinct and it has severely affected the mackerel shoals as well. The local fishermen do not land mackerel in large quantities anymore.
It seems that mankind is unable to exist on our planet without severely affecting the climate or the abundance of our fellow species of plants and animals. The effect that we have upon the ecosystems are closely related to the sheer number of our species and industrialisation. These two factors are affecting both the climate and the environment in general.
We could cope with industrialisation if we where able to keep our numbers down. Some scientists such as James Lovelock aver that we can only control the emission of greenhouse gases to an acceptable level if we reduce our population to around 1.5 billion people. I agree with him.
To reduce the human population would also help alleviate the pressure on our fellow species and help their populations to survive.
What is wrong with controlling our fertility? We are intervening in nature to control disease and increase the fertility of the soil and this intervention has led to huge increases in our numbers. We are not afraid to make medical advances to stave of disease so why not make social advances to control our population?
Industrialisation helps us to maintain a world population of 7 billion people; to deindustrialise would mean that millions would starve to death. There is only one way to maintain a healthy world, that includes a healthy human population, and that is to manage our population growth just as we manage soil fertility.
I do not agree with government imposed limits to family planning as it is an infringement to our liberty. However, I appeal to personal responsibility. If we all limited our family to one child we could halve the population of the planet within a hundred years or so. The planet easily has the productivity to feed 3.5 billion people but we need to halve the population again within the following one hundred years.
Reducing the population could be achieved without anyone starving to death. It would also reduce the likelihood of war created by nations competing for resources. It is possible if we make the necessary
political, economic and cultural changes to achieve this. I am not a member of population matters but I support their primary aim.
http://www.populationmatters.org/
I fear that mankind will not be able to control himself. But, we must ask ourselves the question, "do we want to live in a world where there is no room for a sparrow, a dandelion, a tree or a herring"? "Do we want to live in a world where only plants and animals that are useful to humans are allowed to survive"? "Do we want to live in a world where we are unaware of the dangers of eliminating our fellow species"? There is the possibility of unwittingly achieving our own extinction by killing everything else.
Surely, 1 billion people is enough to ensure our own survival for the foreseeable future. A world with 7 billion people assures us of nothing but depravation.
What is more disturbing is that 1 in 10 of a sample of 6,000 species is under the threat of extinction. There has been a a threat to the numbers and range of a number of species especially those which have specific environmental requirements.
Most environments ranging from coastal to uplands have been affected especially meadows where there has been a 97% reduction of area which is no defined as "meadow". Fenland and mires are being drained and peat bogs are also being replaced by forests.
Some of our most familiar and iconic species are disappearing fast such as sparrows and skylarks. Recently, I took a walk through a golf course on the north Norfolk coast and I was pleasantly surprised to see and hear a dozen skylarks. The skylark is now a rare sight elsewhere, however.
Some species such as the red kite and the otter have extended their range and numbers but the success of some species has been more than compensated for by the demise of many others.
When I was a youth growing up in West Wales in the 1950s and 1960s there were large flocks of lapwings feeding on the farmland. Now I rarely see a lapwing when I pay a visit.
The estuary of the the Western and Eastern Cleddau rivers or Aberdaugleddau was regularly filled with massive shoals of herring; the local fishermen used small boats coated with black tar waterproofing to catch prodigious supplies of the fish. There are hardly any herring left in the estuary now and any that are are caught with a line rather than a net.
Industrialised fishing has made the local herring shoals almost extinct and it has severely affected the mackerel shoals as well. The local fishermen do not land mackerel in large quantities anymore.
It seems that mankind is unable to exist on our planet without severely affecting the climate or the abundance of our fellow species of plants and animals. The effect that we have upon the ecosystems are closely related to the sheer number of our species and industrialisation. These two factors are affecting both the climate and the environment in general.
We could cope with industrialisation if we where able to keep our numbers down. Some scientists such as James Lovelock aver that we can only control the emission of greenhouse gases to an acceptable level if we reduce our population to around 1.5 billion people. I agree with him.
To reduce the human population would also help alleviate the pressure on our fellow species and help their populations to survive.
What is wrong with controlling our fertility? We are intervening in nature to control disease and increase the fertility of the soil and this intervention has led to huge increases in our numbers. We are not afraid to make medical advances to stave of disease so why not make social advances to control our population?
Industrialisation helps us to maintain a world population of 7 billion people; to deindustrialise would mean that millions would starve to death. There is only one way to maintain a healthy world, that includes a healthy human population, and that is to manage our population growth just as we manage soil fertility.
I do not agree with government imposed limits to family planning as it is an infringement to our liberty. However, I appeal to personal responsibility. If we all limited our family to one child we could halve the population of the planet within a hundred years or so. The planet easily has the productivity to feed 3.5 billion people but we need to halve the population again within the following one hundred years.
Reducing the population could be achieved without anyone starving to death. It would also reduce the likelihood of war created by nations competing for resources. It is possible if we make the necessary
political, economic and cultural changes to achieve this. I am not a member of population matters but I support their primary aim.
http://www.populationmatters.org/
I fear that mankind will not be able to control himself. But, we must ask ourselves the question, "do we want to live in a world where there is no room for a sparrow, a dandelion, a tree or a herring"? "Do we want to live in a world where only plants and animals that are useful to humans are allowed to survive"? "Do we want to live in a world where we are unaware of the dangers of eliminating our fellow species"? There is the possibility of unwittingly achieving our own extinction by killing everything else.
Surely, 1 billion people is enough to ensure our own survival for the foreseeable future. A world with 7 billion people assures us of nothing but depravation.
Thursday, 9 May 2013
CO2 soon to pass 400ppm in the atmosphere
Very soon the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will surpass 400 ppm. This means that since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have increased the concentration of this greenhouse gas by 50%. Industrial processes have added 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere within 200 years.
At the height of the last ice age the amount of carbon in the atmosphere stood at 400 billion tons. To warm up the atmosphere to a sufficient level to create the balmy inter-glacial climate nature then added another 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Nature alone accomplished this over a period of tens of thousands of years. We have added another 200 billion tons in just 200 years or so. Global average temperatures are going to rise again and this is indisputable.
Far from reducing the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases mankind is in fact stepping up the rate.
It has been known since the time of the scientist Arrhenius that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global average temperatures by between 3 and 5 degrees celcius. This means that we have stored up an average increase of 1.5 to 2.5 degrees celcius since the industrial revolution.We are probably in a dangerous predicament already.
The time for action is now, as our species and others may not have time to adapt to the new climatic conditions. Some areas of the planet may in fact become cooler whilst other areas become much warmer to compensate. We are already facing changes to weather patterns caused by global warming and this is set to be exacerbated.
Scientists such as James Hansen and James Lovelock have warned us about the future and they are doing this because they are genuinely concerned about the future of mankind. The time for action is now, so we need to manage the reduction of greenhouse gas production. We may have to face the politically difficult problem of managing mankind's fertility as well to help reduce the population of the planet without war or starvation.
If we do not tackle these problems urgently, we face the possibility of nature curbing our numbers without any form of human emotion or sympathy.
Let us hope that we can act before it is too late.
At the height of the last ice age the amount of carbon in the atmosphere stood at 400 billion tons. To warm up the atmosphere to a sufficient level to create the balmy inter-glacial climate nature then added another 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Nature alone accomplished this over a period of tens of thousands of years. We have added another 200 billion tons in just 200 years or so. Global average temperatures are going to rise again and this is indisputable.
Far from reducing the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases mankind is in fact stepping up the rate.
It has been known since the time of the scientist Arrhenius that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global average temperatures by between 3 and 5 degrees celcius. This means that we have stored up an average increase of 1.5 to 2.5 degrees celcius since the industrial revolution.We are probably in a dangerous predicament already.
The time for action is now, as our species and others may not have time to adapt to the new climatic conditions. Some areas of the planet may in fact become cooler whilst other areas become much warmer to compensate. We are already facing changes to weather patterns caused by global warming and this is set to be exacerbated.
Scientists such as James Hansen and James Lovelock have warned us about the future and they are doing this because they are genuinely concerned about the future of mankind. The time for action is now, so we need to manage the reduction of greenhouse gas production. We may have to face the politically difficult problem of managing mankind's fertility as well to help reduce the population of the planet without war or starvation.
If we do not tackle these problems urgently, we face the possibility of nature curbing our numbers without any form of human emotion or sympathy.
Let us hope that we can act before it is too late.
Saturday, 20 April 2013
Waco Texas explosion
The tragedy resulting from the explosion of the fertiliser factory exposes the dangers of large explosions.
Buildings were destroyed at a considerable distance from the factory. The blast could be heard 45 miles away and the power of the explosion registered 2.1 on the Richter scale; it created a minor earthquake. Had the explosion happened in the middle of a city hundreds if not thousands of people could have died.
But this explosion is nothing compared to a thermonuclear one. If an H Bomb exploded in NewYork, Moscow or London millions would die. It makes me wonder why we had to invent such weapons in the first place.
A stable and democratic nation was the first to use the less powerful A bombs with the result that hundreds of thousands of civilians died. If Adolf Hitler had developed the A bomb first there is no doubt in my mind that he would have used them without mercy to obliterate Russian and British cities. We must hope that an unstable nation is never able to deploy such weapons. But I fear that sometime in the future this could happen.
We cannot reverse history and "un-invent" nuclear weapons. The Western powers did little to stop Israel from obtaining nuclear weapons and the Eastern powers have also been unable to restrain North Korea. This could lead to the possibility of another arm race where Iran feels no moral restraint to creating a nuclear weapon. Japan also has the the ability to quickly develop a nuclear weapon if it chose to do so.
I doubt that the human species has the sense to impose nuclear disarmament on itself so I fear it is only a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used again.
Buildings were destroyed at a considerable distance from the factory. The blast could be heard 45 miles away and the power of the explosion registered 2.1 on the Richter scale; it created a minor earthquake. Had the explosion happened in the middle of a city hundreds if not thousands of people could have died.
But this explosion is nothing compared to a thermonuclear one. If an H Bomb exploded in NewYork, Moscow or London millions would die. It makes me wonder why we had to invent such weapons in the first place.
A stable and democratic nation was the first to use the less powerful A bombs with the result that hundreds of thousands of civilians died. If Adolf Hitler had developed the A bomb first there is no doubt in my mind that he would have used them without mercy to obliterate Russian and British cities. We must hope that an unstable nation is never able to deploy such weapons. But I fear that sometime in the future this could happen.
We cannot reverse history and "un-invent" nuclear weapons. The Western powers did little to stop Israel from obtaining nuclear weapons and the Eastern powers have also been unable to restrain North Korea. This could lead to the possibility of another arm race where Iran feels no moral restraint to creating a nuclear weapon. Japan also has the the ability to quickly develop a nuclear weapon if it chose to do so.
I doubt that the human species has the sense to impose nuclear disarmament on itself so I fear it is only a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used again.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Death of a Famous Person
I can see no reason why anyone should celebrate the death of Mrs Thatcher. With regard to politics you should always separate the policies from the person. If she had not become Prime Minister someone else would have probably introduced similar policies as, rightly or wrongly, the UK population were in the mood for a change.
I see no reason for violent demonstrations during her funeral and I hope everyone shows restraint.
You can probably infer from my opinions that I am of a liberal frame of mind and I disagreed with most of her policies. Not everything that she did was bad, however, and she was one of the first world leaders to recognise the problems of climate change and global warming but I doubt if she will be remembered for that.
Everyone should remember that she has close family and friends who want to grieve her passing and they deserve some peace of mind.
I could never understand how anyone could grieve for somebody who was not a really close family member or friend. I could not grieve for John Lennon, when he died, even though I loved his music so much. I said to myself it is a shame that such a great musician will no longer be composing or performing. I just played one of his records in his memory. I felt the same when Patrick Moore died and I treated myself to reading some of his work in his honour.
I shall not watch the funeral or mourn her death but I shall not be celebrating either. That is the most rational way for me to react.
I see no reason for violent demonstrations during her funeral and I hope everyone shows restraint.
You can probably infer from my opinions that I am of a liberal frame of mind and I disagreed with most of her policies. Not everything that she did was bad, however, and she was one of the first world leaders to recognise the problems of climate change and global warming but I doubt if she will be remembered for that.
Everyone should remember that she has close family and friends who want to grieve her passing and they deserve some peace of mind.
I could never understand how anyone could grieve for somebody who was not a really close family member or friend. I could not grieve for John Lennon, when he died, even though I loved his music so much. I said to myself it is a shame that such a great musician will no longer be composing or performing. I just played one of his records in his memory. I felt the same when Patrick Moore died and I treated myself to reading some of his work in his honour.
I shall not watch the funeral or mourn her death but I shall not be celebrating either. That is the most rational way for me to react.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
