[Diggers350] What next? 10:10

Sat Jan 8 00:49:20 GMT 2011

The Global Commons Institute http://www.gci.org.uk/  gave a pretty full 
exposition, about twenty years ago.
The Fascism of Democracy is such that they were ignored.

The rest of this may be a repeat

God saw the necessity for 'Contraction and Convergece' and that 
dramatically reducing the population of vermin polluting the planet is 
the only option to ensure the survival of this Creation.

There are now so many Atheists and 'People of the Book' (who do not have 
true religious faith, they believe words,) that God has lost the source 
of spiritual power and is no longer competent.    HIV was  too easily 
counteracted  by scientists,   Bird flu did not spread from human to 
human, and Swine flu just is not lethal enough to get  rid of five 
billion Homo Saps.    Ibola does not appear in an international airport 
from were it would soon be globally effective, but in isolated villages 
where it is so lethal it is self limiting.

The attempt by Scientists on the side of God to combine Bird flu 
lethality with Swine flu human to human infectiousness through the 
vaccine route was foiled by the agents of Satan who detected 
'contaminated' vaccines and  had them withdrawn.

With his massed Bankers, Politicians, and Economists busy inflating the 
currency, aided by Leninists debauching  the same,  Satan is assured 
growth will continue to his ultimate triumph.    Extinction.

Enjoy Life
Ilyan

On 07/01/2011 08:31, james armstrong wrote:
> I seek a coherent  exposition of the alternative to growth.
> A challenge at the ideology level.
> Until this exits and is widely debated, the  implications of growth and its destructive effects are difficult to
> show on a case by case basis.
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> To:Envlist at yahoogroups.com;climate_change at foe.co.uk;diggers350 at yahoogroups.com
> From:mobbsey at gn.apc.org
> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 23:56:57 +0000
> Subject: [Diggers350] Fwd: Re: What happened next? 10:10
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Hmmn,
>
>
>
> So, what's correct in the the debate over affluence versus reality?
>
>
>
> P.
>
>
>
> - ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: What happened next? 10:10
>
> Date: Thursday, January 06, 2011, 11:49:34 pm
>
> From: Paul Mobbs<mobbsey at gn.apc.org>
>
> To: "10:10"<hello at 1010uk.org>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 06, 2011 11:38:43 am 10:10 wrote:
>
>> As you are well aware there exists an ongoing and detailed debate in the
>> environmental movement about how far we should far we can or should push
>> people to change and how we can square with what the science demands is
>> necessary to save the planet's ecosystem and climate.
>
> The difficulty is that the debate isn't based upon what constitutes the
>
> "reality" of our situation, but rather what is considered "acceptable" to say
>
> within the present political climate/media scenario. Yes, we're all heading to
>
> the same destination, but the issue is whether our chosen mode of transport is
>
> capable of getting us there. That's an issue of fact, not of relative debate,
>
> and my concern is that the whole 10:10 machine is distoring the facts to fit a
>
> restricted debate.
>
>
>
>> 10:10's message is based around the idea that it's possible to engage
>> people who either couldn't or wouldn't be interested in an environmental
>> message otherwise. Generally, the sorts of people we're trying to reach
>> are:
>> -affluent, or want to be so
>> -want to see themselves as part of a wide movement, and as a leader amongst
>> their peers
>> -want to see themselves as an early adopter of the latest fashion or trends
>> -are generally averse to radical or grand visions, and are put off by
>> excessively long term thinking about the world (which is why the 80% cut in
>> co2 emissions by 2050 is so hard for most people to accept).
>
> That's the problem. You're watering down reality in order to fit with a
>
> delusion view of our present situation. The facts say that continued growth,
>
> let alone the world's "poor" consuming as the "affluent" do today, is not
>
> possible. Given the clear distinctions between the reality of our situation,
>
> and the implications of the type of lifestyle that you are seeking to promote,
>
> is that honest?; and, as a result of that distinction, is that moral?
>
>
>
> Is it better to "appeal" to the public by knowingly distorting the reality of
>
> our predictament, or to be one of those promoting present development patterns
>
> with (allegedly) a complete oblivion to these facts. As noted in the original
>
> posting, it's this ontological compromise that makes 10:10 an 'apologist' for
>
> the present consumption-based economic system; it's that position which makes
>
> you part of the problem, not part of the solution.
>
>
>
> Irrespective of whether people agree or not, we have to represent what the
>
> available evidence indicates or we are no better than the political-corporate
>
> "axis of growth" who -- in the same manner -- filter reality in order to fit
>
> their desires rather than reconciling themselves to their objective situation.
>
> I meet these people a lot at conferences and seminars; I talk to these people
>
> at conferences and seminars; what I find interesting is that their flawed
>
> reality offers so many opportunities for campaigns, but so few
>
> "environmentalists" bother to try because, I perceive, that means accepting
>
> the reality themselves. And, by and large, as the present mainstream of
>
> environmentalism is largely constituted by and of the "affluent", this reality
>
> sets up contradictions that inevitably neuter the ability of the movement as a
>
> whole to succeed.
>
>
>
>> By breaking up the target to 10% in a year, and dressing it up in fancy
>> branding and packaging, appealing to as many celebrities as we can and so
>> on we are trying to reach these people and make the carbon cutting message
>> that much more palatable.
>> I hope this makes sense, and sheds some light on our thinking;
>
> This is what I perceive to be the problem with 10:10. We could eliminate
>
> carbon emissions tomorrow but it would avoid an ecological collpase within the
>
> human system if present consumption trends continue. That's reality. The idea
>
> that we can use efficiency and technological measures to solve climate AND keep
>
> consuming is deeply flawed, both in terms of the theoretical thermodynamic
>
> principles and the physical availability of resources. If you are aware of
>
> this, but you choose to make the message "more palatable" by selectively
>
> editing what you represent, then you are committing as a grave a deception as
>
> the political/industrial lobby that prmotes the present growth paradigm
>
> irrespective of the impact this has on the environment.
>
>
>
> If you'd like to know a little more I suggest that you read my latest
>
> presentation on resources and human ecology --
>
> http://www.fraw.org.uk/redirect.html?vplimits
>
>
>
> ...and my presentation to Parliament from November 2009 --
>
> http://www.fraw.org.uk/redirect.html?appgopo
>
>
>
> ...or if you want the potted/simplified version, read my Ecologist article from
>
> last year --
>
> http://www.fraw.org.uk/redirect.html?ecologist
>
>
>
> If you'd like me to come along and talk at one of your events I'd be happy to
>
> do so. Also, if you send me an address, I'll forward you a copy of my book.
>
>
>
> I accept that, in the present political/media climate, this is a tough issue
>
> to deal with. However, in the words of that wry observation on reality; "the
>
> truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off".
>
>
>
> P.
>
>
>
> - -- 
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> "We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government,
>
> nor are we for this party nor against the other but we are
>
> for justice and mercy and truth and peace and true freedom,
>
> that these may be exalted in our nation, and that goodness,
>
> righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and unity with
>
> God, and with one another, that these things may abound."
>
> (Edward Burrough, 1659 - from 'Quaker Faith and Practice')
>
>
>
> Paul's book, "Energy Beyond Oil", is out now!
>
> For details seehttp://www.fraw.org.uk/ebo/
>
>
>
> Read my 'essay' weblog, "Ecolonomics", at:
>
> http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ecolonomics/
>
>
>
> Paul Mobbs, Mobbs' Environmental Investigations
>
> 3 Grosvenor Road, Banbury OX16 5HN, England
>
> tel./fax (+44/0)1295 261864
>
> email -mobbsey at gn.apc.org
>
> website -http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/index.shtml
>
> public key -http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/mobbsey-2011.asc
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
>
>
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNJlbKAAoJEDsmEcFctbqZJwwQAKzzj4H6SCllyf6Qxz8oXEah
>
> cDYm3nvL/9zLj7zNGQOSp5ebF0LgqxWSZWsgCRO7b56K8tyFJhgR2wAK3iaUatsW
>
> xS0t2AFumunqYbeK42p7AE4hRxC+Q7RSykcIes/AwoGpMG+APw5EeGmd+FOJeOcT
>
> VbvQJCT2/QDRRi/Pkg2krNo//Rr8vT+M9C++wbGsGAr5tHT6bqYQVsZqu7KOrX69
>
> VmonSrPY/8m71EXOq52J/KSfEvd2dLh/Y5Ym3vMq5uHDjPBYFdRMJK0TdVwqFB7Y
>
> LL/KMO2LiTnVx8dVsv5pH6XP46vxuDKqUXeV3+2Wa4WMgxG+tBj+UDYak9eXW/rl
>
> ja6VmECXpiBtIvtyz3bcX0QVf5m0wNVKo2YHhpD8/i/Rqf2NK4g5+x2U9HAkVfdU
>
> w//p3WnFY4nDoBHxZvpTEMxdXaDMAxfOrDbXF9UpZHB4o5Swjer3C4lpZ+pj1wD0
>
> tkr5yERw3b7v7cUcCEg9vKzNCSEMIz/8iGYwnrhSfsJ+/ow/dN2iEMomK3vYQTd6
>
> bPnNZzmJiE4bqoQ/R+pwBJjHO/jgxUHD0yThpMJwQ5XPvsMGU2G8a9LvFnnAEbTM
>
> k46iSY/pY77EnsaRaBAIKCZW/h6nwrlYOidFQFQDftFOeYn0/nE3HF5rp07dlCSq
>
> MDEf8Qn8+4l3g6sCN1cY
>
> =6wi/
>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     		 	   		