Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    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.
    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/s...cells-1.392919
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    1) money isnt everything.
    2) no one society is better then another

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    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.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by raineandfyre)
    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/s...cells-1.392919
    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.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Academic Bruv)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    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.
    I agree with all of that.

    The point I made about incentivising industry was probably a little vague in hindsight. I meant incentivising local industry, rather than big business, which would do nothing to help our economy as they'd only outsource everything to the far East anyway, if they even agreed to do it in the first place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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.
    http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ho.html

    "HO201 To ensure everyone is provided with housing appropriate to their needs."

    They're going to increase the amount of social housing, control private sector rents and improve tenants' rights. Few people will be getting thrown out of their houses if they bring this in, and those who do will have a council house available for them to live in instead. They're clearly stating that they think it's disgraceful that homelessness exists and have come up with a list of solutions.

    The rest of their website is full of things like this if you care to read it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    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.
    yes but this is a false proposition, this is not being proposed. They are not going to make anything better with this zero growth policy.
    Extrapolate that logic and apply it to morality, just because you cannot objectively measure morality as one could say count money or solve an equation doesn't mean that we cannot develop concepts of right and wrong.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Academic Bruv)
    yes but this is a false proposition, this is not being proposed. They are not going to make anything better with this zero growth policy.
    Extrapolate that logic and apply it to morality, just because you cannot objectively measure morality as one could say count money or solve an equation doesn't mean that we cannot develop concepts of right and wrong.
    They will make a sustainable economy which is what we want.
    yes and I'm not saying that we can't because that would imply I suggested we can't develop culture. But one persons morality is different to another's and there can not be one person with perfect mortality.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    They will make a sustainable economy which is what we want.
    yes and I'm not saying that we can't because that would imply I suggested we can't develop culture. But one persons morality is different to another's and there can not be one person with perfect mortality.
    No they won't. I won't get into debating this as its a topic of its own.

    Yes but lets be clear

    - some people can be more moral than others
    - the moral frameworks of societies can be also judged morally
    - Places like north Korea with a dictatorship and starving people are worse than democracies such as Australia where people are not put into forced labour camps, you can make this moral judgement.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Academic Bruv)
    No they won't. I won't get into debating this as its a topic of its own.

    Yes but lets be clear

    - some people can be more moral than others
    - the moral frameworks of societies can be also judged morally
    - Places like north Korea with a dictatorship and starving people are worse than democracies such as Australia where people are not put into forced labour camps, you can make this moral judgement.
    Zero growth is the only sustainable growth.

    Ok so which absolute set of moral principals (agreed upon by everyone) are you using as your basis for judgement? You are using your own opinion which means your conclusions are biased.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Zero growth is the only sustainable growth.

    Ok so which absolute set of moral principals (agreed upon by everyone) are you using as your basis for judgement? You are using your own opinion which means your conclusions are biased.
    That could be said of all morality. That does not mean that we should abandon the concept.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Academic Bruv)
    That could be said of all morality. That does not mean that we should abandon the concept.
    Again, I never said we should. I simply maid the point that because it's a subjective thing (like societal values) one system cannot be said to be greater then another system.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    But I do understand that infinite economic growth on a finite planet is just not possible with the way we are doing things now
    but.... that's not actually true.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    but.... that's not actually true.
    Great argument I'm utterly convinced.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Great argument I'm utterly convinced.
    I'm not making an argument.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    I'm not making an argument.
    Well it's an incorrect statement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Well it's an incorrect statement.
    What makes you think that, exactly?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    What makes you think that, exactly?
    In a finite world we cannot have infinite growth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    In a finite world we cannot have infinite growth.

    why not?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    why not?
    You don't have infinite resources to allow for it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.