Human Civilization Is Moving To Extremes
It’s easy to see that the evil in the world keeps getting worse. Regardless of what one believes as to the genesis of human species, wickedness has been around us since the beginning. Yet it seems like just yesterday that at least it had a purpose, as if it were a means to an end: maybe taking over the world, cleansing a region of an undesirable race, raping a woman, or holding a child for ransom. Now ISIS and the Taliban are blowing up schools and hospitals, inflicting intense amounts of suffering on a random and senseless basis.
But at the same time, the good keeps getting better. Here’s news that Norway will ban all fur farms starting in 2025. People have been exploiting animals for fashion and profit for a very long time, and now it appears that perhaps we’re rising above that.
Good and evil are, of course, only one axis; think for a moment about others. Consider wealth, where the “pie” owned by the top 0.01% is six times larger than it was in 1976. Think about what’s happened in politics since the GWB administration, not only in the Middle East, but also the rise of fascism all over Europe, the Brexit, and of course, racism and the Trump phenomenon here in the U.S.
But not all these different axes have morally implications; think of extreme sports, adventures, and weddings; consider extreme weather events, thought to be caused by human-caused climate change.
Perhaps the take-away is this: The future always looks like the past, until it looks like something else altogether–and that “altogether” is probably going to a great deal wilder than one could have imagined.
@Craig
Extremes. Well that is precisely where we, the world and its peoples need to get to Craig! But extreme in the sense of ‘extremely useful and fulfilling place and time for all to exist’. And it is achievable no doubt about it – and happening everyday step by step in fact.
I have consistently and (ad-nauseam) in over 1000 posts since 2011 in many energy focussed forums including 2GreenEnergy, referred to a term I coined 7 years ago whilst musing about the future of global energy generation technologies. The term was a longish one that I shortened to: – ‘the future global massive energy generation technology imperative’. I liked it then, and I like it even more in 2018.
But I am amused to report nobody else liked the term at all, or understood or expanded on its core attributes, particularly when viewed from the platform of an ever-changing and rapidly growing world including the ‘must eventually embrace’ concept of ‘a new global era of prosperity and opportunity for all peoples’ underpinned by the availability to all of massive, clean, safe, low cost, power.
But a small objective minded cohort did identify a glimmer of relevance in a term that was also a metaphor really for: ‘a global energy generation technology future; very well-conceived, implemented and managed, for the enduring benefit of all people’. The energy generation technology imperative though was of course at odds entirely with the near hysterical media surrounding renewable energy (mainly instant fix and miniscule scale, PV and wind) concepts only.
The greater story in the background however; was that there was a rapidly growing and energy needs based WORLD of people out there that must and will as a collective (sooner or later) confront its future imperative needs head on, to ensure world survival at a standard beyond sliding back towards ‘stone age’. Massive clean, safe, low cost, energy generation was at the forefront of these imperatives. And that summary underscores ‘the future global massive energy generation technology imperative’ as an immutable fact unfolding today.
Today’s news is that there is another ‘light bulb’ moment now unfolding in the step by step evolution of the realisation of the ‘the future global massive energy generation technology imperative’. Notably and disappointedly however, it highlights a further distancing of the US (through its own agenda and determination) from featuring prominently in this exciting unfolding global energy technology future, a lamentable fact that I have reported on several times hitherto in 2GreenEnergy forums.
———————–
Some key takeaway points from this report 31/01/2018:
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2131295/five-things-watch-during-theresa-mays-china-visit?
When British Prime Minister Theresa May begins her three-day visit to China this month, her main focus will be on evaluating opportunities to expand the trading relationship between Britain and China as the latter opens up its markets.
In a statement ahead of her trip, May said her visit would “intensify the ‘golden era’ in UK-China relations.
British trade with China has surged 60 per cent since 2010, and last year, with the world adjusting to the Brexit vote after its initial shock, Britain’s China-bound exports jumped 30 per cent.
For its part, China remains interested in investing in British assets, particularly in high-profile infrastructure projects such as the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant on the Bristol Channel coast of Somerset, England. China, through state-owned China General Nuclear Power Corporation, owns a third of the project, which May’s government has said reflects Britain’s openness to foreign investment.
China also is eyeing a potential British high-speed rail contract as part of its global push.
A priority for Beijing during May’s visit likely is getting Britain’s formal endorsement of Xi’s signature programme, the “Belt and Road Initiative”, which aims to increase China’s trade and infrastructure links to Asia and beyond.
“If Prime Minister May is smart enough she would know what China wants to hear from her the most is the support of the belt and road,” said Jin Canrong, a Renmin University international relations scholar.
May last year sent Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond to attend Xi’s Belt and Road Forum a few weeks before Britons went to the polls in a general election. Later that year Hammond said Britain would appoint a special envoy to handle belt and road-related issues and form a Belt and Road Council of senior British business leaders who were interested in the plan’s infrastructure initiatives.
Many countries (excluding those not interested in participating) in the Chinese Belt and Road massive infrastructure initiatives planned, are all underpinned by: massive, clean, safe, low cost, power generation technologies.
Even though the US has excluded itself from the Belt and Road initiative Craig, if 2GreenEnergy is truly an agnostic enterprise that supports and promotes abundant, clean, safe energy generation technologies of the future, you would certainly be doing a great service to your members and contributors by touching on the subject of inexorable global massive energy generation technology trends (beyond RE technologies) that are unfolding along the lines of the ‘the future global massive energy generation technology imperative’ definition I conceived in 2011, and the developing international discussions and activities in this space now being reported on it seems on a daily basis.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence Coomber,
I fear your attempts to interest Craig in new concepts outside the political arena may fall on deaf ears. Craig’s attention span beyond castigating the current US administrator is somewhat limited.
Chinese Belt and Road massive infrastructure is underpinned completely by massive, clean, safe, low cost, power generation technologies, may prove to be little myopic, as is enthusing the PRC’s philanthropic nature for investing in this project.
The US Europe, India and Russia have every reason to be suspicious and concerned.
You are correct this project is an example of the PRC’s new expansionist muscle and grab for power and influence. The PRC is empire building. The Belt and Road project is part of a long term strategy by the PRC to use it’s growing military might to intimidate and dominate a large part of Asia. In normal circumstances that might no be such a concern, but the PRC doesn’t differentiate between government, state, political objectives and commerce, trade etc.
To the PRC Communist Party of China (CPC)all Chinese enterprises, whether State or private, or even mult-national joint ventures are subject to the “Will of the Party” and PRC State. This includes the PLA, which is an institution of the CPC not the State.
An example of how this could be dangerous is the small town of Gwadar in . For centuries this small city survived as a dusty, forgotten fishing port ringed by cliffs, desert, and the Arabian Sea,. Life for it’s 40,000 inhabitants was poor, but peaceful.
Suddenly, Gwadar is one of the centerpieces centerpiece of the Belt and Road initiative. Gwadar is destined to be a huge container port with 1,800 miles of superhighway and high-speed railway connecting China’s landlocked western provinces. A new Dubai with a population of 2 million people.
PRC development aid is not philanthropy but in the form of loans and investments the terms of which provide for the PRC to locate military bases, seize Pakistani coal mines, energy transmission infrastructure, generating plants, oil pipelines, etc while possessing great leverage over the Pakistani governments. China already has the right to operate the Gwadar port for 80 years.
Development aid buys more states to vote for the PRC in the UN. Less criticism of PRC human rights abuses and scrutiny of issues like Tibet etc.
The Devil, as they say, is in the detail.
@Marcopolo
LOL you old pessimist MP.
Well I agree with all that except I am much more sanguine with a very long term vision about all of its manifestations and unfolding conundrums that are really just ‘100 year soundbites’ to me, and in a greater context, that’s how everybody should see it.
Trade and connectivity through trade is a compelling binding force. You know that. It is nature’s cost efficient way to ‘calm the farm’. And that point will render most contemporary negative commentary (no matter how accurate it might prove to be on the journey) a bit irrelevant in the longer term context.
What’s ultimately important though is the technological imperatives that are kick started (the ways and means are also moderately irrelevant). It’s the big move forward in technological know-how that is enduring and useful. The hoopla around it all unfolding will be consigned to ‘dust gathering’ history books eventually of interest to no one.
So what does this really mean for the good people of Gwadar. Well nothing but hope and opportunity going forward I would suggest. Better still, the Gwadarians of 2118 would not have much of a clue how come they are all living so happily and prosperously and would be too busy having fun to reflect on what made that possible looking back either I imagine.
Yes you are correct MP; Craig has sunk into the political cesspit and has just one nostril only above the surface – and the lack of oxygen is taking a noticeable effect unfortunately. LOL
Lawrence Coomber
Where folly passes from living memory, it is ripe to be repeated.
Craig,
It’s an ethical conundrum. On the one hand why is breeding animals for fur anymore unethical than breeding animals for leather ?
After all, is not as if the animal is in danger of extinction. In fact the only reason the farmed animal exists is because of human intervention. Many animals species have been selectively bred over the millennia until they no longer bear any resemblance to their ancestors.
Many of these creatures could not survive in the wild. Why is it so terrible to be born in a happy warm environment, well fed and looked until sufficiently mature to be killed painlessly, inferior to being born in the wild where the fate of the majority majority of these animals is being torn apart by dogs, owls, eagles, bobcats,foxes, coyotes, wolves, wolverines, eaten by snakes or even being hit by cars etc ? Most Minx kittens are killed by adult Males, taken by birds, large spiders, snakes, and all manner of predators.
The wild population live dangerous, perilous lives beset by a range of diseases, parasites, injury etc.
In mink farming, nothing is wasted. The fat is rendered into mink oil that is used to protect and waterproof leather, as well as in the cosmetic industry and now sometimes to produce bio-fuels. The rest of the carcass, with the manure and soiled bedding (straw or shavings) is composted to produce organic fertilizers.
Like I say, it’s an ethical conundrum.
From a practical viewpoint, Fur Farming may serve to keep the wild population from being hunted (or poached)to extinction.
I also worry that organizations, like PETA etc. are merely killjoy puritans. As Lord Macaulay observed, ” The puritan hates the cruel sport of bear baiting, not because of the pain caused to the poor bear, but because it provides pleasure to the spectators “.
I say a conundrum, because like many ethical dilemmas, the answer isn’t a easy as the first emotive reaction suggests. Such a small proportion of society now live in rural surroundings it’s understandable most people have a very romanticized concept of the natural world.
Recently, I was confronted by a campaigner for an Animal Rights group who urged me to sign a petition calling for the abolition of fur farming. I noted with interest her leather boots, belt and Indian fringe style suede jacket. Perhaps I’m growing cynical, but her rhetoric seemed more directed to hating fur as a symbol of wealth and giving pleasure to the wealthy and glamorous than any real concern for the plight of the animals.
Recently the US President let the Obama era degree banning US wildlife hunters from killing globally endangered species. At first glance this looked a pretty callous and disastrous move. I dislike killing any wildlife for ‘sport’ except as vermin or population control.
However, after a more careful study of the reasons behind the President’s decision, it becomes apparent that wealthy paying hunters may be the only hope of preserving these endangered animals.
The termination of the ban was requested by conservationists as a method of combating poachers. It transpires this is the most effective method of reducing corruption and poaching activity.
The first and most emotional aspiration may not always be the wisest or most practical when it comes to wildlife management.
That’s the ethical conundrum.