I have had some amazing and inspiring conversations over the past few weeks. I am consistently surprised at the passion and motivation some people have to stand up and make a change. They have made something extremely clear to me:
Irrespective of the problems the world's societies face today and who caused them, it is the youth who will inherit the consequences. It is in our hands to make the change.
If we want to minimise the effects of climate change, eradicate extreme poverty, live sustainably or address any other of the myriad of issues, WE must be proactive. WE must stand up for our future and make the change.
What we lack in experience, we make up for in passion.
That much is clear to me. I am beginning to realise why AIESEC is such an important global youth organisation. I am inspired by the people behind the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and "It's Getting Hot in Here" and their efforts to raise awareness and promote action among today's youth.
We see the future that we want, we just need to stand up and shape it.
I bought a scooter - does that count?
I felt exactly the way you do, 20 years ago. 20 years ago, I was just graduating, I was a young liberal, concerned about the environment and wanting to erradicate poverty.
I’ve been learning for 20 years now, and I have realized a thing or two. You have the passion to replace the experience, but without the experience your passion will be wasted on solutions that only exacerbate the problem.
This is why, for instance, we have a lower average net worth in america than we did 70 years ago when we started the “War on poverty”. Back then, the average american had more money than debts, now the reverse is true. The war on poverty is one of the primary causes of this.
In my experience, those who want to change the world often wrap up their desires for improvment with specific ideologies about how the world must be changed to make it “Better”. Teh socialists in russia believed they were creating a better society, and because their theories were grounded in poor philosophy, they impoverished and starved millions.
So, the question is not whether you have the passion- clearly you do.
The question is do you have the guts to use science to discover the way to improve things, even when this doesn’t follow your preconcieved notions? For instance, the earth has been getting cooler for the past decade. Mars has been having a “global warming effect” as well.
Given these two scientific facts are you going to endorse the political agenda of the “global warming” people that will result in the starvation and destitution of hundreds of millions of people? Or are you going to have the guts to follow science and stand up to what you’ve been told? The way the russians didn’t at the turn of the century.
Hi Jay,
Thanks for the reply. From a theoretical standpoint (as that’s all I have), I’m not comfortable with applying a particular ideology to every country in order to solve their social problems. Each country is unique, and hence requires a unique solution.
I’m interested in the science behind the Earth cooling over the past decade, rather than warming. Do you have any sources for this?
What do you base the judgement that addressing “global warming” will lead to the “starvation and destitution of hundreds of millions of people”? If you read scientific reports like the IPCC climate change impact report, people all over the world face droughts, starvation and the loss of their land if we don’t do enough to mitigate the effects of climate change. I fail to see how accepting the effects of climate change as fact would lead to the consequences you outlined.
Jeremy
While its true that every country is unique, its in error to reject a solution by claiming that every country requires its own solution. Time enough has shown that socialism has failed– and while its been applied differently in every country (including the US) the ideology has failed everywhere… meanwhile capitalism has succeeded exactly to the degree that it has been embraced– everywhere.
The reason for this is very simple– people are essentially the same, and science is universal. Thus when you oppress people by denying them a chance to make a living (as global warming proponents advocate) you force them to live in worse conditions, starve or die. In the alternative, if you liberate people, and allow them to trade freely with each other, they will do so— and the end result, is that they will prosper. By removing the “social safety net” you eliminate its need, and by putting one in place, you make people poorer. This is counter intuitive to liberals but is easy to see if you recognize that the “socail safety net” requires taxes and those taxes cause poverty (by taking money out of hte hands of the poor) to a greateer degree than the social safety net can improve the lives of the poor. This disparity gets worse if you focus the taxes on the rich– the assumption is that the rich can well afford to pay it, but who ends up paying in the end is the poor who have fewer jobs because the rich people spent more money paying taxes than creating jobs.
Same thing with environemtnalism– you get the government out of regulating the environment, and prosperous companies will clean it up themselves. This is why the world went from coal to oil… because there was no government mandating that people use coal.
“If you read scientific reports like the IPCC climate change impact report,”
This is the fundamental problem with the environmentalist movement: it does not embrace science. It rejects it. You are referring to a report as “Scientific” which is purely politically motivated. It is not science in any shape or form.
this also causes you to reject scientific facts– such as the planet getting cooler over the last decade, or the “global warming” happenbing on mars as well– because they don’t fit your ideology.
Don’t take my word on it– don’t believe the IPCC propaganda either– go research it yourself, and find someone without an agenda who is giving you the straight facts.
Millions of people will starve if the global warming people get their way– because what they want is not to prevent global warming (which everyone knows isn’t happening) but to control society and impose global socialism… they profit from global socialism and they don’t care that millions will die.
they use the claime that millions will die to pursuade people like yourself into supportin them, and ironically you end up endorsing exactly which you would like to oppose.
You believe these things are facts because you have been told to– but you have not doen the research. You are dubious towards me because I’m telling you something different. But the reality is, everything I’m saying here is more grounded in science than what you’ve bee ntold– I just say it without stealing millions from people to spend on creating a government institution to propagandize it.
I must rely on the slim possibility that you will have an open mind and actually look into it for verification.
If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to email me. I don’t check your blog very often.
Hi Jay,
What I am saying is that a solution may need to be tailored to the realities of a country. There’s no guarantee a “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate for every issue.
I’d still like to find out how global warming proponents “advocate” denying people a chance to make a living. The purpose of the global warming/climate change movement is to ensure that we and our future generations have conditions in which to live and sustain ourselves.
I’m afraid I disagree. The government’s role is to represent the interests of the people that elected it. It is in the interests of the people to have a stable and habitable environment. If the activities of corporations are negatively impacting the environment, then it makes sense for the government to introduce regulations and policies to encourage businesses to act more responsibly, in the interests of the people it represents.
I do not believe that businesses alone will drive society to be more sustainable. There are certainly entrepreneurs and business leaders pioneering the move towards more sustainable business practices, but they are in a minority. A combination of efforts from government, business and individuals are required.
I beg to differ. The IPCC reports are written and reviewed by climate change scientists. Do you believe as well that peer-review scientific journals are entirely un-scientific? I will acknowledge, however, the sad reality that the content of the reports can be modified by political pressure (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600291.html).
This all sounds like a conspiracy theory. Who are you referring to? You’ve never actually named any individuals, groups or organisations that are “global warming people”. In what way are they imposing “global socialism”? As I said earlier, the purpose of the climate change movement is to ensure the preservation of a climate in which humankind can survive. It is a movement that seeks to prevent the loss of life you’re referring to, not cause it.
You challenge my views on the basis that I haven’t done enough research, yet you have provided no sources to back up the views of your own conspiracy theory. If you would kindly provide some, I would be more than happy to read them and approach it with an open mind. If everything you’ve said is “grounded in science”, then I’m sure there’s a wealth of journal articles and reports out there that support your argument here. I could easily try and find them, but what would stop me from getting caught up in reports like the “IPCC propaganda” you have criticised? Until you can provide some credible, scientific proof and a compelling argument, I can only take what you’ve said with a grain of salt.
If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on this blog. I’m sure there are other people interested in what you have to say.
Jeremy