by EMDEE » Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:42 pm
Ionnsaigh
I agree with some of what you say, although you have made some spurious assumptions about my generalisations.
In order to discuss the state of the global environment, it is necessary to make certain generalisations regarding the West and the Third World. The fact that the West has historically benefited from the lion’s share of the world’s wealth does not mean that everyone in the West is living an affluent lifestyle. I am not naïve enough to think this, or try to imply that this is the case. I know that the UK is one of the richest countries in the world, but so far as personal wealth is concerned, we all know that control over this rests in the hands of very few. I know that there are extremes of affluence and poverty within the countries in the West, but poverty in the West does not compare with the widespread privation and absence of any hope that exists in the Third World. This generalisation is necessary, as it is the West that has historically exploited the Third World, irrespective of wealth distribution within the West, and we cannot negate history.
You do not name the two adjoining areas that are two miles up the road from you, but Bearsden and Drumchapel seem to come to mind. I have heard life expectancy statistics relating to these two areas before, and I also think that it is utterly unacceptable that this is the case within the bounds of the UK.
I know that you are coming to this debate from a different angle from me, and I can also see that we have some common ground, but this does not make my analysis metaphysical. I think that you are seeing this as a worldwide class struggle, when in fact there is a distinct geographical dimension to it, and the class structure across the world is so different that we are comparing chalk and cheese.
Although you say that you personally are not on the side of George Bush, living in a democratic country, we have appointed a government under the electoral rules, who have chosen to back the US in many areas of policy, and whether we like it or not, by representing us internationally, they have put us all on Bush’s side, maybe an unpalatable fact to many, but nevertheless a fact. Both Bush and Blair have been re-elected, so they must be pleasing someone, although obviously not ionnsaigh. To illustrate, we may not all think that the smoking ban is fair, but we all have to abide by it, as we elected the MSPs to act on behalf of us.
I don’t speak for myself when I say that Homo sapiens is the only species on the planet that has the intelligence to exploit and plan to do so. I am stating an established scientific fact. You have stated that the responsibility for the economic social and environmental mess that the planet is in is down to the economic system of capitalism, I would ask you; who is responsible for the development of the economic system of capitalism? The answer to this must be Homo sapiens. You are, in fact, agreeing with me that the concept of homo economicus is the main obstacle to the development of the human race to a more altruistic and caring global environment.
Your vision for a more caring world, although commendable, is more metaphysical than my analysis. The world order will not change unless the nature of homo sapiens changes, and there is no likelihood of that happening.
If religion can’t give us a peaceful and caring coexistence, what hope is there for politics?