Most of the main Green policies are terrifying

Ok imagine an alien race lands on earth they take up humans test them and say 'well they don't understand temporal mechanics' or 'they can't communicate with us when other species can' so they aren't intelligent and we can do what we want. Would you accept it?

We base our actions on the best available evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that mice are sentient. You might as well argue that we shouldn't grow plants for food using that same methodology. As I said, I wouldn't support using mice as test subjects unless there's a very, very good reason to do so but to use the argument that they might be intelligent is really not very sensible...

However when there is a big barrier (like communication) there I'd no evidence either way all we know is that they are really different. It would be like rich people accusing the poor of being expendable and seb-human

I'm not a neuroscientist but I'm pretty sure the size of their brain makes it biologically impossible for them to have any kind of sentience. It's not at all like the rich accusing the poor of being sub-human because there is no scientific basis on which to support that assertion.

Are you trying to play devil's advocate or do you actually believe that there's a realistic chance mice could be sentient? Lots of intelligence tests have been done on animals and I don't recall ever seeing mice appear as having done well in any of them.

Maybe a bit of both. Although when it comes to animals that might be sentient I'd put more money on the great apes, corvids, elephants, dolphins, whales and octopi.

Well exactly... but not mice!

But we have to save the planet one way or another, or we have to move away from the planet and go somewhere else. Not within our lifetimes, granted, but if we carry on as we are now then it's either leave or die. Even if we are the first country to embrace this idea, then that is a step forward and it will lead to others doing the same.

Besides, there are a lot of poor countries that have already been adversely affected by climate change. Many island nations are facing the threat of disappearing due to rising sea levels. Like it or not this sort of thing will become more and more of an 'immediate concern' if we don't act to slow it down.

I'm aware that the Green party's policies are idealistic and 'philosophical' as you put it, but it's undeniable that more and more people want that. Just look at how many people have joined them over the past few months. We can always start out as idealists and moderate ourselves with practicalities as and when sticking to ideals becomes unfeasible.

And one of their policies is to increase the amount of international aid, so that ought to help the 'starving people' out a little.

Investing more in renewable energy, which the Greens would undoubtedly do, will also lead to developments in that field which should benefit people everywhere as the technology will become cheaper over time.

I think there is some misunderstanding here...

Psychology is not what most would class as a proper science.

As for zero growth, infinite economic growth on a finite planet is not sustainable or possible long term in its current form.

What do you think causes economic growth, and what do you think it results in?

I'm just curious as to the level of your understanding of basic economics.

Economic growth = investment = increased funding for new technology = development of widespread renewable energy.

What's the point of arguing about our finite resources as of now when we're not exactly on the brink of disaster? Technological development is happening now, thanks to economic growth and consequential government investment. Radical hard-left actions will have no benefit to this cause.

If you are impoverished, you cannot act to do anything, and that's a fact.

If the Greens were to govern as they claim they would - Britain would be finished just as quickly as they could legislate. The Greens are deeply unpopular in their only parliamentary constituency (Brighton) where they can't even organise a small town effectively.

All the things they claim to want tend toward the realms of extreme wishful thinking. "Investing in renewables" is a very long game and requires the co-operation of industry. There are no guarantees of success - the Greens act as though there are incipient miracle technological breakthroughs just waiting to be made.

As for leading other nations - that doesn't work. We would impoverish ourselves (making Britain completely irrelevant and a global laughing stock) whilst other nations do whatever they have to to be economically viable. It would be for absolutely nothing.

1) money isnt everything.
2) no one society is better then another

Posted from TSR Mobile

Aren't they running a minority council in Brighton? It's no surprise that they can't organise anything if they keep being overruled by other parties. More would get done if they had an outright majority.

I am wholeheartedly in agreement that if you are impoverished you can't do anything - which is why I support the living wage, so everyone who works can afford to put money into the economy without the need for state support. This will be far more beneficial than simply cutting taxes to the rich, because poorer people spend a larger proportion of their income than rich people do.

Look around you, Britain is already finished. We have effectively no meaningful industry left. Our GDP figures are being kept high by the wealth of a few very rich people, who don't put as much money in to the economy as is taken out of it to pay for their vast salaries, while most people are getting poorer and poorer in real terms. It's a disgrace that some families can't afford to feed their children without the aid of food banks, when some people have far more money than they can ever spend.

Investing in renewables IS a very long game, I'll admit, but it is a game we need to win. Industry can be brought onside if we give them incentives to do it, and some research would be government funded. There is massive support for the green movement worldwide, just not among people with influence at the minute, but that can and will change as more people are affected by climate change.

And there are already breakthroughs being made in renewable technology. This was last year. http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/spray-on-solar-cells-1.392919

Dangerous nonsense

Firstly nobody is saying that 'money is everything', we are saying that it is dangerous and irresponsible to avtively try and make britain poorer.

Secondly you are dead wrong. For example, take Saudi arabian society where women can't drive, complete lack of free speech, public whippings based on theocracy (or north korea perhaps) now compare this to a country like say Britin, Norway or australia, these are clearly more humane and better societies.

Big Industry is a complete red herring if you're genuinely trying to be sustainable. All truly sustainable technologies have one thing in common - they are decentralised. The energy sector has managed to become as powerful as it now is because all of the big 20th Century energy generation mechanisms could be centralised into power stations. This isn't going to be possible with renewable technologies. On top of that, renewable technologies are a lot more intrusive. People can just about cope with corporations running the energy system when the power plants are conveniently packed away somewhere they can't see them but when it comes down to actually placing solar panels on roofs and wind turbines on fields, they're not happy. And that's completely understandable. Why would you support intrusive technologies that only seem to serve the pockets of the CEOs of some MNC? The only renerwables-based model that is able to work is a model in which energy generation is local and community-owned, where the benefits and profits from energy generation goes directly into the pockets of the people rather than being siphoned off by companies. This is precisely what has driven the success of solar power in places like Germany, the Netherlands and parts of the US.

Capitalism and sustainability are mutually exclusive. It's an outrageous statement but the fact that the big corporations that are set to lose from action against climate change are battling so vehemently against stricter environmental policies proves that they understand that statement is true. Big business understands climate change a lot better than many environmentalists do - corporations understand that they have no place in a sustainable future. That's precisely why they're battling so fiercely against them - it's literally an existential threat for capitalism.

They're not suggesting that, that's what you're hoping they stand for.

In fact, given their policy is to introduce Citizen Income (72 pounds a week) and abolish all other benefits, including housing benefit, you will see many people thrown out of their homes, including many of Britain's most vulnerable people.

Why? If less money was the price of happiness or a better society then it's worth the cost.

in your opinion, you can't be completely rational and objective so no they aren't better objectively.