The thing is, the true effects of the kyoto treaty are overlooked because "we are saving the world". For one kyoto gave a free pass to China who will one day be the worst polluter. For another, kyoto would have systematically kept any other developing/third world country from joining us in the first world. Pollution controls would have made that impossible, and I ask you, is it fair to say we have x developed nations, and therefore if your not developed as of today, you can live in poverty because you are happier there? Not saying most people who believe in Kyoto think that third world countries are happy there, but you must have some justification for keeping those countries in poverty....
Whatever you want to say about saving the world, you have to realize that you enjoy living in an advanced country that does indeed burn fossil fuels. In effect kyoto would have encouraged the rich nations to plunder the poorer nations just like in the past. Sure it would have cost the US and Australia the most money, but thats just a by-product of a treaty that can not be proven scientifically to even come close to "saving the environment."
Just because everyone believes the rags we call newspapers does not mean global warming is man-caused by any means. Heck, my newspaper 7 years ago told me That the world's best doctors said I would get cancer by living next to a high-tension power line because of the magnetic field. And today "certified Doctors" tell me that magnetic fields will cure me of ails through advertisements in that same newspaper. We understand magnetic fields better today, and seeing that my weather forcaster can not even predict weather 10 days from now, how the heck am I supposed to believe doomsday predictions of 20 years from now? Am I supposed to believe that we can predict weather 20-30 years from now, but not 10 days?
Use your common sense, sure global warming might occur in the next 20 years, but I think it might be more likely that global warming would occur in 2000 years from now. Or maybe we will enter another ice age. Our climate is always changing, heck in the last 1000 years we have had a mini ice age, a "hot" age and now today we think its the end of the world because we are having a temperature increase similar to the one we have already had in the last 1000 years. Maybe we will destroy the earth. But I doubt we can accuratly predict when that will happen considering we can't even predict weather 10 days from now, let alone years from now.
Why did the treaty simply allow China to be exempted from the said treaty? Seems to me the treaty was flawed more in how it was put together then anything. Make a fair treaty and I am sure you will get more signers. As for blaming the US/australia for it not going forward, that is simply ignorant. Every party could have worked to make the treaty fair and more sound for the world, but they stopped at fairness and simply said that the US should do the MOST work to improve the environment without looking at the facts that China will greatly outstrip the US in pollution, and yet just to get them to sign it we should exempt them. Why not just exempt the US/Aust, and there ya go. A treaty everyone would have signed.
"Indeed. The greatest threat to world peace is the huge military might of the United States. After weaker states protect themselves in the short term by stockpiling weapons, the long-term goal of peace can only come about by international pressure on the US to scrap up to 90% of its military capacity, and bring it down to levels compatible with defence rather than aggression. Once this is achieved, international law can be fully implemented for the first time in history, resulting in the abolition of war, the strengthening and democratisation of the UN, and a new age approaching true civilisation, instead of the current barbarism."
So what is the difference between "peace-keeping missions" and wars of aggression? Since we are on the topic, the first Korean war was technically a "peace-keeping" mission since it was a UN lead war. In reality it was very similar to a war of aggression where the UN invaded to stop the spread of Communism. So I do ask you, whats the difference between those 2?
While you are thinking about that, think about another fact. Wars of aggression will happen whether we want them to or not. South Korea is much richer then N. Korea, so what happens when the communist state decides to invade SK? Do we sit here and debate it in the UN and talk about how warfare is illegal and that NK is breaking the law? I mean seriously, how can you illegalize war unless your willing to use warfare in the first place. And does that make the UN any better just because they can call it a "peace-keeping" mission when they do resort to warfare to preserve the status quo? There goes illegalization of warfare.
I am not trying to say that your ends are bad. I would love to see warfare become a thing of the past, but reality dictates different things. Invading Iraq was a HUGE mistake, and the US should be faulted for making a terrible decision...but that doesn't mean we should say that ALL military action is bad.
Do I think for a second we should invade North Korea? NO.
But that doesn't mean we should cut off our balls and make a blanket statement that gives NK a blank check to do whatever they want. Genocide is not the answer but on the other hand the situation should be monitered and international pressure SHOULD be put on NK to follow international norms. Norms such as not developing chemical/biological weapons assuming this report is true.
We aren't talking about nuclear weapons, but on the other hand, do you really think its a good idea to let every power hungry man out there have weapons that could kill millions of people? I don't like the fact that these weapons exist period, but I think the less people that have them, the better.
It only takes one nut with these to kill a million people or perhaps the world.
Humanity has always had a superiority complex, and universal rights have always been something that we have no idea on how to implement fairly and correctly. Back to the days of Rome, people with money get more rights in general (as in Rome rich people got jury trials whereas poor people just got a judge who decided things.) Rich people today get defense teams with 10 or more lawyers and smooth talkers who can let them get away with murder. But I digress.
Today we have a problem implementing fairly rights for convicts, terrorists and animals. (as you stated.) Its a sign of progress I think that skin color is no longer used as it once was, but the fact that there are people out there that still think that is another story alltogether.
Self-aware AI will become a big topic once it is implemented, and I think that today we need to focus on what you stated, but the day may not be far off before computers indeed become self-aware. This is where we need to study philosophy and history to figure out what direction we should go in. What rights would a self-aware machine want? It is inherently different then a human (not saying this from a superior position or saying that we are superior) but the fact remains that a self-aware machine is different in that instead of food/water, the machine would require electricity. And instead of health care, it would want maintenance.
Clearly, we should study history though, because we once enslaved races of people based on skin color. This isn't that far in our past either. We should not make those same mistakes again, and using history and common sense as a rubric, we can clearly come to a logical conclusion of matters that does not envolve enslaving an intelligent life form (once again.)
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, the true effects of the kyoto treaty are overlooked because "we are saving the world". For one kyoto gave a free pass to China who will one day be the worst polluter. For another, kyoto would have systematically kept any other developing/third world country from joining us in the first world. Pollution controls would have made that impossible, and I ask you, is it fair to say we have x developed nations, and therefore if your not developed as of today, you can live in poverty because you are happier there? Not saying most people who believe in Kyoto think that third world countries are happy there, but you must have some justification for keeping those countries in poverty....
Whatever you want to say about saving the world, you have to realize that you enjoy living in an advanced country that does indeed burn fossil fuels. In effect kyoto would have encouraged the rich nations to plunder the poorer nations just like in the past. Sure it would have cost the US and Australia the most money, but thats just a by-product of a treaty that can not be proven scientifically to even come close to "saving the environment."
Just because everyone believes the rags we call newspapers does not mean global warming is man-caused by any means. Heck, my newspaper 7 years ago told me That the world's best doctors said I would get cancer by living next to a high-tension power line because of the magnetic field. And today "certified Doctors" tell me that magnetic fields will cure me of ails through advertisements in that same newspaper. We understand magnetic fields better today, and seeing that my weather forcaster can not even predict weather 10 days from now, how the heck am I supposed to believe doomsday predictions of 20 years from now? Am I supposed to believe that we can predict weather 20-30 years from now, but not 10 days?
Use your common sense, sure global warming might occur in the next 20 years, but I think it might be more likely that global warming would occur in 2000 years from now. Or maybe we will enter another ice age. Our climate is always changing, heck in the last 1000 years we have had a mini ice age, a "hot" age and now today we think its the end of the world because we are having a temperature increase similar to the one we have already had in the last 1000 years. Maybe we will destroy the earth. But I doubt we can accuratly predict when that will happen considering we can't even predict weather 10 days from now, let alone years from now.
Why did the treaty simply allow China to be exempted from the said treaty? Seems to me the treaty was flawed more in how it was put together then anything. Make a fair treaty and I am sure you will get more signers. As for blaming the US/australia for it not going forward, that is simply ignorant. Every party could have worked to make the treaty fair and more sound for the world, but they stopped at fairness and simply said that the US should do the MOST work to improve the environment without looking at the facts that China will greatly outstrip the US in pollution, and yet just to get them to sign it we should exempt them. Why not just exempt the US/Aust, and there ya go. A treaty everyone would have signed.
"Indeed. The greatest threat to world peace is the huge military might of the United States. After weaker states protect themselves in the short term by stockpiling weapons, the long-term goal of peace can only come about by international pressure on the US to scrap up to 90% of its military capacity, and bring it down to levels compatible with defence rather than aggression. Once this is achieved, international law can be fully implemented for the first time in history, resulting in the abolition of war, the strengthening and democratisation of the UN, and a new age approaching true civilisation, instead of the current barbarism."
So what is the difference between "peace-keeping missions" and wars of aggression? Since we are on the topic, the first Korean war was technically a "peace-keeping" mission since it was a UN lead war. In reality it was very similar to a war of aggression where the UN invaded to stop the spread of Communism. So I do ask you, whats the difference between those 2?
While you are thinking about that, think about another fact. Wars of aggression will happen whether we want them to or not. South Korea is much richer then N. Korea, so what happens when the communist state decides to invade SK? Do we sit here and debate it in the UN and talk about how warfare is illegal and that NK is breaking the law? I mean seriously, how can you illegalize war unless your willing to use warfare in the first place. And does that make the UN any better just because they can call it a "peace-keeping" mission when they do resort to warfare to preserve the status quo? There goes illegalization of warfare.
I am not trying to say that your ends are bad. I would love to see warfare become a thing of the past, but reality dictates different things. Invading Iraq was a HUGE mistake, and the US should be faulted for making a terrible decision...but that doesn't mean we should say that ALL military action is bad.
Do I think for a second we should invade North Korea? NO.
But that doesn't mean we should cut off our balls and make a blanket statement that gives NK a blank check to do whatever they want. Genocide is not the answer but on the other hand the situation should be monitered and international pressure SHOULD be put on NK to follow international norms. Norms such as not developing chemical/biological weapons assuming this report is true.
We aren't talking about nuclear weapons, but on the other hand, do you really think its a good idea to let every power hungry man out there have weapons that could kill millions of people? I don't like the fact that these weapons exist period, but I think the less people that have them, the better.
It only takes one nut with these to kill a million people or perhaps the world.
Humanity has always had a superiority complex, and universal rights have always been something that we have no idea on how to implement fairly and correctly. Back to the days of Rome, people with money get more rights in general (as in Rome rich people got jury trials whereas poor people just got a judge who decided things.) Rich people today get defense teams with 10 or more lawyers and smooth talkers who can let them get away with murder. But I digress.
Today we have a problem implementing fairly rights for convicts, terrorists and animals. (as you stated.) Its a sign of progress I think that skin color is no longer used as it once was, but the fact that there are people out there that still think that is another story alltogether.
Self-aware AI will become a big topic once it is implemented, and I think that today we need to focus on what you stated, but the day may not be far off before computers indeed become self-aware. This is where we need to study philosophy and history to figure out what direction we should go in. What rights would a self-aware machine want? It is inherently different then a human (not saying this from a superior position or saying that we are superior) but the fact remains that a self-aware machine is different in that instead of food/water, the machine would require electricity. And instead of health care, it would want maintenance.
Clearly, we should study history though, because we once enslaved races of people based on skin color. This isn't that far in our past either. We should not make those same mistakes again, and using history and common sense as a rubric, we can clearly come to a logical conclusion of matters that does not envolve enslaving an intelligent life form (once again.)