Sailing a sinking ship?

[Hollus]

Hollus would you be willing to give up your standard of living so that someone in the sub-Sahara can have a better existance?

Just a question.

Im definatley willing to look at the sacrifices we need to make, both as a nation and as an individual. Thats very close to the point of this thread. Maybe the things we have to give up wont necessarily lower our standard

of living.

"Ecosystems are -- or can be -- the wealth of the poor. For many of the 1.1 billion people living in severe poverty, nature is a daily lifeline -- an asset for those with few other material means. This is especially true for the rural poor, who comprise three-quarters of all poor households worldwide. Harvests from forests, fisheries, and farm fields are a primary source of rural income, and a fall-back when other sources of employment falter. But programs to reduce poverty often fail to account for the important link between environment and the livelihoods of the rural poor. As a consequence, the full potential of ecosystems as a wealth-creating asset for the poor -- not just a survival mechanism -- has yet to be effectively tapped."

"But for the poor to tap that income, they must be able to reap the benefits of their good stewardship. Unfortunately, the poor are rarely in such a position of power over natural resources."

World Resources 2005 -- The Wealth of the Poor: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty

Maybe all we need is a new system that will distribute wealth rather than consolidate it. I dont see the need for an individual to be excessively rich like those that our society holds up in such high regard.

[Hicksey]

Hollus would you be willing to give up your standard of living so that someone in the sub-Sahara can have a better existance?

Just a question.

Im definatley willing to look at the sacrifices we need to make, both as a nation and as an individual. Thats very close to the point of this thread. Maybe the things we have to give up wont necessarily lower our standard

of living.

"Ecosystems are -- or can be -- the wealth of the poor. For many of the 1.1 billion people living in severe poverty, nature is a daily lifeline -- an asset for those with few other material means. This is especially true for the rural poor, who comprise three-quarters of all poor households worldwide. Harvests from forests, fisheries, and farm fields are a primary source of rural income, and a fall-back when other sources of employment falter. But programs to reduce poverty often fail to account for the important link between environment and the livelihoods of the rural poor. As a consequence, the full potential of ecosystems as a wealth-creating asset for the poor -- not just a survival mechanism -- has yet to be effectively tapped."

"But for the poor to tap that income, they must be able to reap the benefits of their good stewardship. Unfortunately, the poor are rarely in such a position of power over natural resources."

World Resources 2005 -- The Wealth of the Poor: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty

Maybe all we need is a new system that will distribute wealth rather than consolidate it. I dont see the need for an individual to be excessively rich like those that our society holds up in such high regard.

Money is power. To change to a system like that I highly doubt that the ultra rich will be the ones paying the price. We're the only ones powerless to such a move and I have no doubt in my mind that we will be the ones paying that price. I work way too hard to have what little I have now and if they took that much more I'd move out of Canada.

[Hollus]

Money is power. To change to a system like that I highly doubt that the ultra rich will be the ones paying the price. We're the only ones powerless to such a move and I have no doubt in my mind that we will be the ones paying that price. I work way too hard to have what little I have now and if they took that much more I'd move out of Canada.

Your response is very understandable. No doubt such a change would cause a massive recession.

What if the long term benifits outwieght the sacrifice? What if our economy could bounce back on our new system thats more conducive to nature and democracy, thus being more dependable and sustainable?

Currently we are in a nose dive toward extinction. Is this what our soldiers of World War II died for? So we can bow our heads and serve corporations in fear of losing our jobs while the market takes over, destroying our lives and those yet born? Maybe the heroes of the 21rst century will be the ones that our willing to give up their livelyhood and endure the hardships of change for the betterment of humanity. The defense(and infringment) of ones rights and freedoms can take many forms.

Certainly our shiny new cars, our super-thin super-big TVs and such will be much less prevailent. Are these things really worth the amount we invest in them?

Us powerless? If we have a nation of people willing to make sacrifices for change it will be the ultra-rich who are powerless.

[Hicksey]

Money is power. To change to a system like that I highly doubt that the ultra rich will be the ones paying the price. We're the only ones powerless to such a move and I have no doubt in my mind that we will be the ones paying that price. I work way too hard to have what little I have now and if they took that much more I'd move out of Canada.

Your response is very understandable. No doubt such a change would cause a massive recession.

What if the long term benifits outwieght the sacrifice? What if our economy could bounce back on our new system thats more conducive to nature and democracy, thus being more dependable and sustainable?

Currently we are in a nose dive toward extinction. Is this what our soldiers of World War II died for? So we can bow our heads and serve corporations in fear of losing our jobs while the market takes over, destroying our lives and those yet born? Maybe the heroes of the 21rst century will be the ones that our willing to give up their livelyhood and endure the hardships of change for the betterment of humanity. The defense(and infringment) of ones rights and freedoms can take many forms.

Certainly our shiny new cars, our super-thin super-big TVs and such will be much less prevailent. Are these things really worth the amount we invest in them?

Us powerless? If we have a nation of people willing to make sacrifices for change it will be the ultra-rich who are powerless.

What sacrificies?! I don't have those things now. I have 2 TVs, both hand-me-downs. I drive a 13 year old minivan with 410,000km on it. The only extra I have is this computer, and I built it myself one piece at a time because I couldn't afford to put out all the money at the same time.

What makes me reject the idea of socialism to begin with is that we give so much already and get nothing but substandard health care while we watch politicians, the campaign contributors and their friends get rich off of us. I think the only difference between your proposition and reality today is who we're going to be in servitude to.

I don't trust these people at all. Just because I voted for Harper doesn't mean I trust him to take the country where I believe it needs to go, rather because I think that he's less untrustworthy than the rest. I really like his average joe lifestyle. I like that he's not an elitist and that he's struggled as most of us have. I don't trust pointy-headed elites like Paul Martin to lead us.

[shoop]

You are the one that said corporations lack the capacity to protect 'human values'.

Kinda tough to debate that statement if you don't define the term. If you want to find out how capitalism is going to account for human values, best to let you define the term to begin with...

What do you consider to be *human values*?

I'd like to ask you the same question, and how capatilism is going to account for them.

[fellowtraveller]

Its amazing how many people seem to subscribe to 'If its good for {insert corporate name}, its good for Canada.'

Strawman.

Please demonstrate first, and amaze me while you do it, that "many people" say this. It should not be hard, since there are, by your count, many people saying this. Poll perhaps? Survey result? Anything?

How can I argue against of for your statement unless we have a factual base or a legitimate premise? It's like arguing whether Superman or Batman is tougher. You are directing the question towards whether or not what is good for the corporation is necessarily good for the country, based on the premise that it is an idea that many people support. I'd be glad to do that, but only if it is first demonstrated than many people do support that idea.

[speaker]

Very interesting stuff guys, the clash of reality and pragmatism. Sustainability and corporate agenda.

Lots of good comments on both sides that leave one thinking, we could do with out the strawman socialist communist labour capitalist shareholder designations but I don't know how to avoid them.

Human values I think that Hollus did a pretty fair definition for us, maybe a little more in the way of international law since moral strength has such a hard time against greed. Usury laws for example so that interest doesn't consume us. Fair trade laws so that primary producers receive enough so they aren't required to strip mine their farms and forests and fish stocks.

Perhaps a little bit of social responsibility taught in class rooms would be a benefit in the future. Right now we need tougher laws governing corruption of the public trust by the corporations trying to maintain their agenda. University level course in economics need to spend more time on ecologics so that economists aren't running around with their head in the clouds. More time has to be spent studying ecologics and socialogy during consideration of government moves or government approvals of developments sought by the corps.

We don't have the option the way I see it one way or the other we are going to make sacrifices in the near future. It would be good to have a government in power that understands there is more to life than the Status Quo and the status of power

[shoop]

Now that I see what Hollus means by human values.

Sustainable development, adherence to international law and avoiding human rights abuses are all in the best interest of businesses. Granted some countries will get away with this things if allowed to. That is why it is the role of groups like Greenpeace, Amnesty International, etc. to put these company's feet to the fire. The best way to ensure companies are being good corporate citizens is to make a very public show of their missteps. Look at the mistakes of Nike and Kathy Lee Gifford. They were forced to change in the face of public pressure.

The environment is a tricky one. We have to provide indivdual incentives (to both corporations and individuals) to help the environment. Kyoto is not the be all and end all. People need to examine the issue closely. Look at Dithers lecturing Bush during the election, yet the U.S. has come closer to meeting its Kyoto targets than has Canada.

Adding three weeks to Daylight Savings Time will save on energy consumption. A positive step for the environment. The CPC encouraging mass transit use with a tax credit is another positive step.

Slow and steady wins the pace.

Human values I think that Hollus did a pretty fair definition for us, maybe a little more in the way of international law since moral strength has such a hard time against greed. Usury laws for example so that interest doesn't consume us. Fair trade laws so that primary producers receive enough so they aren't required to strip mine their farms and forests and fish stocks.

[tml12]

Without China and the U.S., Kyoto never would have worked. Not that Chretien ever had a plan anyway...

The U.S. administration, definitely with the Democrats and even with a moderate Republican like McCain, will help the environment.

As for China, their air quality is so bad it will kill (sadly due to their apathy) such a significant portion of their population in the next 50 years that it will hopefully wake their self-serving government up.

If Martin had won, what would have happened? I admire Stephane Dion...he works hard in whatever ministerial portfolio the Liberals put him in. It was a shame neither Martin nor Chretien had any interest in giving him any support in the initiatives the very nature of his ministerial position asked him to solve...

[Hollus]

Its amazing how many people seem to subscribe to 'If its good for {insert corporate name}, its good for Canada.'

Strawman.

Please demonstrate first, and amaze me while you do it, that "many people" say this. It should not be hard, since there are, by your count, many people saying this. Poll perhaps? Survey result? Anything?

How can I argue against of for your statement unless we have a factual base or a legitimate premise? It's like arguing whether Superman or Batman is tougher. You are directing the question towards whether or not what is good for the corporation is necessarily good for the country, based on the premise that it is an idea that many people support. I'd be glad to do that, but only if it is first demonstrated than many people do support that idea.

My statment of: "its amazing how many people seem to subscribe to 'If its good for {insert corporate name}, its good for Canada." Is a personal perception based on impressions made throughout my communities and workplaces. Many people seem to have a belief that: crown-corp./state intervention=BAD, free enterprise/

market-based approach=GOOD

I am simply trying to promote debate over our ability to govern for our best interests when industry is increasingly unregulated and left to its own design.

[Spike22]

Yes unregulated industry that is what is needed here like China or India. Great places to do business and no environmental stuff to worry about.

"Now Lee dump that mercury in that lake over there - good boy. Yes the one with all the fish swimming upside down."