UK General Election 2010

[Sneakgab]

''One could say, not without accuracy, that the environment does transcend petty human concerns like finance and healthcare.''

Well, the word ''transcend'' here is a bit iffy. When using the word some green parties seem to mean that environment and economy are unrelated, like the environment is some being in heaven or space that cannot be affected by the economy which is a being on Earth.

THAT is nonsense. We can not take care of our environment without first putting in place Socialism.

As for the idea that the importance of finance, healthcare, e.t.c pales in comparison to the importance of the environment. Well, surely it depends on what you decide matters.

Unless you believe in this God stuff, it is ultimately not possible to logically claim that anything matters (some might suggest that nihilism is really the most logical position), though almost all humans would agree that certain things matter.

It seems to me that non-concious life is ultimately just matter. It is strange that you would place nature so highly considering this quote:

''I don't see the necessity to thank anyone or anything for my life. There is no god, there is no fate, there is no plan, there is no purpose. The closest I get to it is a vague gratitude towards the various natural processes that permit my continued life, ie. oxygen from plants, nutrients from animals, water, etc.

I should probably specify that this is by no means replacing god with some form of pagan nature spirit or tree-hugging universal oneness. It isn't even real gratitude, as that implies some measure of effort on the part of the thing being thanked. It's more an appreciation for the chemical and physical processes that created and maintain the weird anomaly that we call life. One might appreciate a summer's day or the complexity of an insect's wing in exactly the same manner, and indeed I do. ''

Of course this was more a demonstration of your lack of belief in God, some plan, or some higher purpose. However, it did seem to have a bit of a ''it's all just fluff'' tone. Kind of like you didn't really care very much about the flora, fauna or anything and that your attitude was simply that ''it was just there'' and that it was interesting to look at and ponder about and nothing more.

Am I to take it that actually your position is that nature IS of importance?. Is it about biodiversity/ genetic richness (perhaps the genes themselves?)? Is it the unpleasantness brought on other life forms due to the actions of humans? It is because the lives of humans are ultimately dependent on nature (along with the economy of course?)?

In other words, would you care to elaborate?

[Dante]

I'm a biologist by training, and you misinterpreted my words. I'm not about to wax philosophical in a thread that's supposed to be specifically about a political event. All I will say is that it is certainly possible to find meaning in life without god, and that - for a variety of reasons - when it comes to practical concerns I am not a nihilist.

"Transcend" in the sense that environmental concerns should be treated, according to some, not as part of a series of larger political concerns but as issues of such overriding importance that they outweigh other concerns. The environment certainly can be impacted by the economy, but the argument goes that it shouldn't be. In the worst case scenario, why bother sustaining a financial system when the planet is dying? No planet, no people. Same goes for healthcare. If people have to die to ensure the continuation of the species then so be it. From this point of view, it doesn't matter who is in charge so long as they act accordingly. Whether an assembly of a hundred elected delegates make the decision or a single person dictates the decision, as long as the right decision is made - so the argument goes - the other problems can be sorted out later.

It's all a matter of priorities. No matter what you prioritise, the logical choice should be to put the environment first. Because it's a bit of a no-brainer that we depend on the natural world to sustain us, and so if the natural world were damaged beyond repair, so would we. Ergo, those who care about the economy should care about having a world for said economy to exist in. Those who care about healthcare or collective ownership of the means of production should work to preserve the natural world because if it falls then so do their chosen causes.

Those who prioritise differently generally do so either because they believe that the planet is completely beyond our control, which is a bit dim, or because they find the short term more important than the long term, which is downright idiotic.

Anyway, I doubt that any Green party with a shred of influence uses that argument heavily. Politics is all about compromises.

Is there still a movement for Welsh independence? I stopped paying attention after Cornwall started acting up, so's not to encourage it.

[athanasios]

IMO you are in error. Think in reverse: Let us save the environment and destroy the human species. Then there will be nobody left to worry about the planet. What is required is balance. All this talk about 'green' development is a big joke. They call it a bet to save the planet. It is not. It is a bait. Yet another trick to make profit. And I do not need to say who will pay and who will get the money...

[Dunenewt]

Is there still a movement for Welsh independence? I stopped paying attention after Cornwall started acting up, so's not to encourage it.

Yes, and with today being St David's Day, there was some news about PC today.  Also, apparently the Welsh are in favour of more power, but less than 10% want total independence. 

Regarding Cornwall, Mebyon Kernow have a few councillors, and beat Labour into 6th place in the European Elections, but they'll never get any MPs. 

[nemafakei]

"Think in reverse: Let us save the environment and destroy the human species."

Why?

[athanasios]

Ask this to the 'greens'! ;D

[Dante]

It's not a common idea outside certain circles, but the argument goes that the only certain way to ensure that humanity does not damage the biosphere any more is to remove humanity altogether. It's an idea that most people automatically withdraw from, but in truth there's a fair point behind it. You can find a reasonable summary of the notion in video form here. Essentially it's a group which advocates voluntary extinction via nonreproduction.

Now in order to keep the thread on topic I'm not going to make a judgement on whether the entire philosophy is sound. What I will say is that the method adopted is a fair argument, and should perhaps be taken up politically. Even if you don't agree with the voluntary extinction angle, you have to acknowledge that a reduction in births (as opposed to cessation) would have positive consequences for the planet as a whole.

[athanasios]

Overpopulation is a real issue. I agree. Not that the planet, cannot feed billions more, it can. But not in the way we are currently exploiting it it.

Reproduction reduction is a first measure. But the big question is who will decide and for whom.

[Dunenewt]

This is widely being seen as an election where the smaller parties will make some big gains...so the big three decide to have a TV debate, just to convince people there are only three parties...

[Sneakgab]

Hmmm.... the people who abstain as a method of protest. Would voting for a minor party be just as good?

By increasing the number of parties they are willing to consider this way, they might be able to vote for a party that more precisely matches what their ideology, policy,e.t.c

What would happen if the enormous number of abstainers voted for minor parties?

[Dunenewt]

A coalition Government, that's what.

[Dante]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Dunenewt]

Depends who's in the coalition.  Lib-Lab no thanks!

[Mahdi]

Your assuming you would get a coalition.  There's always the possibility of a minority government, like us in Canada have been stuck with for several years.  Or, you could just have election after election after election.... 

[athanasios]

I hope the winner will put an end to this:

http://www.topnews.in/brit-policewomen-wear-head-scarves-improve-relations-muslims-2195128

[Dante]

Not that the winner is likely to care about it, but why exactly?

[Dunenewt]

Seems like a sensible suggestion, if they are entering mosques - UNLESS it is a burqa or niqab, those should be banned.  For more information on the different kind of veils, this helps:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/3.stm

[Dunenewt]

Could a mod perhaps turn this into a poll? 

[Kiyouta]

Vince Cable might actually not be a bad Chancellor of the Exchequer! He did, after-all, predict the economic recession. :P

I'm all for a well hung Parliament.

[Dante]

You have forever tainted the phrase "hung parliament" for me. I hope you're happy. -_- 

[Edric O]

Could a mod perhaps turn this into a poll?

By your command. :)

[Dragoon Knight]

What about the "I don't plan to vote" option? :)

[Edric O]

What about the "I don't plan to vote" option? :)

If you're not going to vote in the election, you don't get to vote in the poll. :P

[Dante]

Ha! Burned, to use the vernacular.

Edit: while we're on the subject again...

Voting is not just some mindless exercise without point or principle. Without exaggeration, it's the foundation of democracy. To exercise one's right to vote is to take part in the governance of one's country, however small that part may be. To vote is to attempt to exercise a measure of control, to become part of a larger whole.

More than that, in this country we are lucky enough to have a voting system that isn't going to turn out 99% in favour of one candidate. I won't say that our voting system is entirely without corruption, because that would just be tempting fate, but at least we don't have to use inked thumbs to ensure that people don't vote multiple times. At least we don't vote the wrong guy into office because of some computer errors. There are people in the world whose votes really don't count for anything. Elsewhere there are people whose votes are dictated by intimidation and threats. And here we have a comparably fantastic system which people turn down for no greater reason than a sense of pampered ennui. I'd find that insulting if I weren't in a position to vote. Actually I find it insulting anyway, but on behalf of others.

The insult is not just directed at those who can't vote. It's directed at those who couldn't vote. The Chartists, Suffragettes, our ancestors who fought and in some cases died, not to be a lord or an MP, but for the right to vote. It's thanks to these people that we have the voice that we do now. To overlook it is to cheapen them and their achievements. These people knew first hand that their government was out of their control, that it would dictate to them and they would have no alternative, no avenue by which to effect change. Not change in the sense of a country, but change in the sense of their own lives. They reacted against this, and their hard-won concessions are being frittered away by those who don't appreciate what they are neglecting.

Voting is a responsibility, not to go as far as to say duty. To enjoy the benefits of democracy (minimum wage, arguably the entire welfare state) without exercising the accompanying responsibility begs the question as to whether these benefits are truly deserved, and how one might react if they were taken away.

So what if one vote is just a drop in the ocean? If every election hinged on a single vote then it would either be among a very small group of people or rigged to absurdity. Voting in this country, and indeed any country, is not about each citizen personally granting their stamp of approval to the victor. It's about a group of people compromising over who governs their country and how. Leave it to other people to do it for you and you may not like the results.

That's my rant.

Edit 2: corrected spelling.

[Wolf]

And that was the best post that Dante ever posted...