What do you think of GATS?

[Fljotsdale]

Y'know, Moridin, the more I see your sig, the more I like it.

------------------

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Y'know, Moridin, the more I see your sig, the more I like it.

Why thank you Ms. Fjlotsdale



------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Yo John D - the answer to this is going to be LONG - unlike your rather snap reply To do with cause and effect. Watch this space! For now....... bump..........

Sorry. Silver Cheetah but if you are going to convenivce me those are the questions that I need to have answers for given the facts that were brought to the table.
As for defending my country, I might could has fraised it better but I'll not not apologize for the sentiment.
John D.



------------------

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by John D Harris:

Sorry. Silver Cheetah but if you are going to convenivce me those are the questions that I need to have answers for given the facts that were brought to the table.
As for defending my country, I might could has fraised it better but I'll not not apologize for the sentiment.
John D.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Facts, right, here are some facts for you! Enjoy!

John D

Bit surprised by your post……… It sounds like you haven't given much thought to why America is rich, and the so called third world is poor. Have you not thought that the two things might be linked? I.e. a large part of the reason America and Europe are rich is on the back of the third world. There are other reasons, of course……..

So, poverty in the third world - let's do a bit of history and georgraphy and stuff…

Reasons:

1. Climate. Most poor countries are either soaked or parched at different times of the year. You either get excessive rain or no rain, annual cycles of drought and flood. This can make agriculture problematic. It also means that working is hell. Working without air conditioning in extremes of humidity and temprature is not conducive to high productivity.
2. Poor soil - a lot of the third world isn't really suitable for growing. Much of the soil is poor, and easily exausted. Plus the run off from heavy rain tends to take fertile topsoil with it.
3. Disasters - 9 out of 10 disaster related deaths happen in developing countries - drought, flood, earthquakes and cyclones. The costs are enormous. For example, between 1961 and 1974, flood, cyclone and storm damage in Asia cost $30b , killed 280,000 people, adversely affected 485 million others, flooded 139million hectares of land, and wrecked 35 million homes.
4. Insects. There are more lifeforms inimical to human life in the developing countries. Many are lethal. Others spread disease. Some just make life very uncomfortable.
5. Overpopulation.

It can be seen that the physical environment has not favoured the developing countries! Essentially, the factors above have stood in the way of growth. It is difficult for these countries to produce much in the way of surplus, and a large and stable argricultural surplus is the first requirement for export. The environment is pretty hostile, really, and this has raised the threshold of investment that developing countries need to achieve before they can industrialise.

Reason 4 is colonisation.

Colonisation was what Europe did to the rest of the world (including America. Americans, as you will be well aware are the descendents of colonising Europeans, including British. Plus native Americans, and everyone else that's joined up since, of course.) Colonisation is the expansion (primarily by force) of European industrial and mercantile civilisation into the rest of the world. Essentially, it was the taking of the western capitalist model and extending it, by force, to the rest of the world, whether they liked it or not. During the long drawn out process of colonisation which covered 100s of years, Europeans committed murder on a scale never before seen. And then there was genocide (for example, wiping out the Carib and Arawak races which inhabited the Caribbean. The current inhabitants of the Caribbean islands are not native. They are descended from transported African slaves, and indentured Chinese and Indian labour. The aborigines in Tanzania were also wiped out, over a million of them.) The colonisers displaced whole segments of populations, moving people around to act as labour where needed (slavery, indentured labour etc). In the colonial process, societal structures all over the world were destroyed, or if not destroyed, severely damaged. (Especially in North, South and Central America and Australia, somewhat less so in India.) Huge parcels of land stolen, or bought for a few trinkets……. And so on……….

PROFIT was the prime mover behind colonisation, (empire was pretty much a by product, when all is said and done). The spread of Christianity was a secondary motive (actually a cloak for trade to hide behind. Let god take the responsibility for atrocities committed in his name - all was sanctioned if it was done 'to save souls'. What nonsense! Conquest was to line pockets. Mostly they weren't even interested in political rule, however, trade gains had to be consolidated and proper controls put in place, and the only way to do that was by taking control of the countries in question. Thus empire was born.

Europe made untold fortunes for both state and individuals from colonisation. The lifeblood of what we call the third world was drained away into the first, where it provided an excellent basis for continued growth and the generation of great wealth.

So, what were the long term effects of colonisation on the southern hemisphere?

My view is that almost all the imbalances that now cripple the economies, societies and politics of the developing world have their origins in colonialism. It was then that the colonial powers laid the foundations of the present division of the world into industrial and poor nations. They effectively wiped out indigenous industry. They undermined the self sufficiency of the third world, and transformed it into a source of raw materials for western industry.

The economic surplus from the colonies made possible the huge western cities that we have today, consuming much and producing very little. These are the cities that consume goods from all over the world, many produced by people who are too poor to feed themselves, but who must grow crops for export to pay off debt incurred to the richer nations, and in attempts to reach western standards of affluence.

It was the colonists who began the introduction of western technology and techniques into the third world, and who also sowed the seeds of population explosion with the introduction of western medicine.

I am NOT suggesting that western medicine should not be available to third world countries. However, as with many western enterprises in the third world, actions are taken willy nilly, with often catastrophic effects. Europe and America are so complacent about the western model, and asume that the effects of exporting have always been, and will always be good. Any bad effects aren't down to the model, but to the stupid third world countries who are full of incompetents who have messed themselves up. What I'm trying to show here is the part Europe has played in completely messing up those countries, by taking away what they had, and replacing it with a model which is founded on EXPLOITATION OF BOTH PEOPLE AND PLACE.


The colonists also introduced western styles of education, which completely unfitted people to take a constructive role in the development of their own countries with anything but the western model in mind. Ever since colonisation, the majority of developing countries have been run by either foreigners or native people who have had a western style education, with the result that the western model continues to be imposed, rather than countries looking at what they actually have, and how they can make better lives for their people without buying into the trap of conspicuous consumption which characterises life in western nations. Conspicious consumption = status. That is what developing countries are being taught by their elites (with some exceptions!) and the message is reinforced by the big american advertising agencies which re-inforce the west's messages where ever product is advertised.

This brings me again to a point Moridin made earlier, regarding corrupt rulers and unstable countries. When the colonisers withdrew after displacing huge populations, carving up countries to suit their purposes, nicking resources right left and centre and completely screwing up whole cultures and societies by imposing their own methods and models of doing things, they left a legacy of instability. Artificially created states led to border conflicts and troubles. With the removal of the original ruling and societal structures, not to mention traditional values, dictatorship had the perfect environment in which to flourish. And flourish it has, in many countries. Products of the colonial education system who are schooled in western ways and taught to admire same over their own cultures, set out to construct imitation western societies, rather than the home grown models of development that would be suited to their areas, and they reap the results that one might expect. The very poor are the worst sufferers.


Much of my degree was in colonial and post colonial studies, - it's a subject that interests me greatly. It's always worth giving some thought as to 'why' something is.

This is not a rant against Americans. (Actually, I'm lumping you in with Europeans here, as it was Europeans that first colonised America.)

What I am saying though, is a country which is as rich as America (ditto rich European countries) have some sort of responsibility towards the developing world. Rich countries have been screwing poor countries since Christopher Columbus - and continue to do so. Giving aid? Yes, I should bloody well think so! You did ok out of the resources, the slave trade et al, as did we all! If you're a Christian, then you might recognise this quotation from the bible 'As a man soweth, so shall he reap.' And that applies to nations too!

Rich nations have been scooping the cream for long enough. Our lifestyles have been financed, to a large degree, by our exploitation of poorer countries. To then turn round and start critising those countries for their inefficiency within our model is just plain ignorant. (It's like slapping a kid around all its life, and then being surprised when it turns into a wife beater. )

So stop moaning about poor countries… and stop with the self congratulation on the aid front. Jesus, given the historical context, I'd say it was the least we can do.


------------------


[This message has been edited by Silver Cheetah (edited 09-08-2001).]

[John D Harris]

Silver Cheetah,
We are not blameless, neither are we 100% responsible. I have never bought into the "Manifest Destiny" line of my country during the 19th and early 20th centuries. My country is in the posittion it is because of BLIND LUCK and coasts on two Oceans.
The Bible also says "The time is coming when no longer shall the father eat sour grapes and the son's teeth be set on edge" Blame me for what I've done, or for that my country has done since I been old enough to paricipate in the process of governing this country. Not for what now dead and buried citizens of this country did in the past. If countries are to blamed for the actions of long dead citizens of the past. Would not the long dead citizens of the colonized lands also bear some blame (granted a smaller share) for not investing R&D into military advancements? For what ever reason, not making a moral judgement, they decided to invest their R&D into agriculture, the arts, social, or any number of things that they decided was important to them. something that they had the "RIGHT" to do. (Example only) The Romans did not invest their military R&D into the invetion of the sturup, the Huns did and it alowed the Huns to shoot arrows from horse back. The Romans bare part of the blame for not being able to protect their Empire. This world is mean and tuff it will rip your face off and preform "Nasty Bodily Functions" in the hole then sew your face back on so you can taste it.It's not pretty ,It's not fair, and It's not right but it is the way it is, for now anyways and definitly in the past! Everyone must bare responsibility for their own life. After all it is their life!
Now can we, the rich nations, do better? YES. Can the poor nations do better? YES. It is both, rich and poor's responiblity, not ONE OR THE OTHERS. I'll take 50% responsibilty, I could even be persuaded to take 75% responsibility. I'm willing to give the majority of the help, but the poorer nations will have to give some too. I'm not saying they don't, but neither will I acccept that we aren't giving either.
I'm amazed that the rest of the world hasn't figured out how to handle the USA! It's easy just ask, we're the nicest, kindest bunch of "Blow Hards" that never walked the face of the earth. P.T. Barum, famous in this country for saying, "there's a sucker born every minute", underestimated the birth rate. But, if you piss & moun at us you bet we're gonna dig-in, you'd (that's the world "you" not a personal you) do the same thing! It's HUMAN NATURE.


------------------

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 09-09-2001).]

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Facts, right, here are some facts for you! Enjoy! Reason 4 is colonisation. Colonisation was what Europe did to the rest of the world (including America. Americans, as you will be well aware are the descendents of colonising Europeans, including British. Plus native Americans, and everyone else that's joined up since, of course.) Colonisation is the expansion (primarily by force) of European industrial and mercantile civilisation into the rest of the world. This is not a rant against Americans. (Actually, I'm lumping you in with Europeans here, as it was Europeans that first colonised America.) What I am saying though, is a country which is as rich as America (ditto rich European countries) have some sort of responsibility towards the developing world. Rich countries have been screwing poor countries since Christopher Columbus - and continue to do so.

Um Silver Cheetah...if America, as you pointed out, was a colony of European expansion, why did we not fall prey to all those nasty things you mentioned, but instead grew into what we are today?

Secondly, how can you call us a colony in one sentence and then turn around and lump us together with Europe, as exploiters of southern hemisphere countries...last time I checked America really had no colonies...outside of a few islands in the caribbean and pacific?!?

Why is it hard for you to lay the blame on Europe without including America? From your post, isn't it truly European countries that should bear the brunt of the responsibility to developing countries....we (america) were just following your lead afterall

------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[Moridin]

John D...can't remember where I posted that I would look at efficiency numbers (or was I just dreaming that ) but I did look around and found some interesting numbers and then did some calculations on Excel and this is what I found...they are very interesting and I am glad that I looked them up


Efficiency of oil use
Number of metric tons of CO2 emissions per barrel of oil
(i.e. In 1995 the US produced .0927 metric tons of CO2 per barrel of oil consumed)

....................1995........2000
US..................0.0927......0.0930
Japan...............0.1110......0.1104
Western Europe......0.1138......0.1140
Russia..............0.1187......0.1169
China...............0.1166......0.1177
India...............0.1174......0.1168
The US is relatively a lot more 'clean' when it comes to the use of oil as a fuel (i.e. car exhaust, power plants, natural gas)

Efficiency of Energy Use
Number of CO2 emissions per 1 Billion BTUs
(i.e. In 1995 the US produced .0427 metric tons of CO2 per 1 Billion BTUs of energy consumed)

....................1995........2000
US..................0.0427......0.0429
Japan...............0.0458......0.0447
Western Europe......0.0429......0.0426
Russia..............0.0453......0.0445
China...............0.0625......0.0617
India...............0.0575......0.0560
Again very interesting to see that the US is relatively more 'clean' (outside of Europe) in energy consumption (i.e. coal burning)

NRG Consumption vs GDP
A pretty good look at how much energy is needed to create $1 of GDP...had a couple of professors use this same calculation to show how 'efficient' we are in our production of products
This is in Millions of BTUs per $1 (i.e. in 1995 the US took 5.06 Million BTU's to produce $1 of goods or services)

....................1995........2000
US..................5.0670......4.5205
Japan...............2.2793......2.5223
Western Europe......3.0074......2.9503
Russia..............42.6284.....48.5857
China...............18.9175.....17.3452
India...............9.7675......10.0841
Japan and Western Europe are a little more efficient than the US, but Russia, China and to a smaller extent India, have a little catching up to do

NRG Consumption per capita
Basically a look at how much energy each person uses each year
(i.e. In 2000 in the US each person consumed 122.008 Billion BTUs of energy)
........................................2000
US......................................122.0088
Japan...................................66.1024
Western Europe..........................67.5638
Russia................................. 121.3296
China...................................12.5872
India...................................4.6994
Now we see that the US is a pretty large consumer of energy...while we are efficient in it's use, we could probably slim it down a little...note how much less Japan and Western Europe use per person and how much more efficiently they produce goods and services.

Just thought these were pretty interesting. This is by no means saying that the US should continue to stroll along their marry path, we do have room for improvement, but so do some of the other industrialized countries

edit: sorry about all the .... but it was the only way I could come up with to format it so it didn't all run together!
------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[This message has been edited by Moridin (edited 09-09-2001).]

[anomie]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: One such step might be to buy from local producers wherever possible – where I live in Brighton, for example, and over much of the UK, it is possible to order boxes of fresh fruit and veg in season from local farmers, rather than stuff that has been shipped from the US, or New Zealand. Certainly there are many products that cannot be produced here, mangoes and pineapples for example! we don’t see many of those growing hereabouts, and it makes sense to buy these luxury goods from where they come from. But to buy US potatoes when they are growing locally, that seems like madness to me. (Not to mention environmentally a disaster!). With other products - well, if I'm confronted with apples in a shop, then I'd always rather buy the UK ones than those from far away. Same goes for almost any product, really, unless the one from far away really does have a strong reason to buy attached to it - if it's fairly traded, for example. Fairly traded foodstuffs usually can't be produced in the UK anyway - bananas, coffee, tea etc.

Silver Cheetah, first hello. Second, keep up the good fight here. Thought you'd like to know that local farm produce purchases are now popularized as Community Supported Agriculture
.

Peace,


------------------

[John D Harris]

Moridin, Thanks for the numbers and I agree there is room for improvement. Personally I hope we are at max efficiency for our exsiting technology, because if we are not then we are wasting.
I was very suprised about the coal burning numbers, this country burns a alot of coal.
Oil use will be hard to cut down because of the size of our nation and the amount of traveling it takes to get anywhere.
We could cut back on coal, but then we'd have to go more nuclear. (But that is a whole other fight in this country) Until the tech. exists for new sources.

------------------

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 09-09-2001).]

[Moridin]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Moridin, Thanks for the numbers and I agree there is room for improvement. Personally I hope we are at max efficiency for our exsiting technology, because if we are not then we are wasting.

I don't know about max efficiency for our existing technology, but we could improve those numbers by just updating 'out-of-date' technology...think about the number of ineffiecient cars there are on the road, what if everyone drove a more fuel effiecient car...or if we start replacing coal plants with more eco-friendly energy plants. We need to continue to create new technology but we also have to start getting rid of the old, inefficient things as well.

If you look at China's number for energy efficiency you can see that they are the highest of the countries (areas) listed. I watched a special on China not too long ago (it was a tour on PBS from Shanghia(sp) to Hanoi) and throughout the entire tour they kept showing these 'prehistoric' coal plants that were just billowing smoke into the air and with each city that they passed by they would point out how every building was covered in soot from these plants. As much destruction of the environment as it is going to cause, the one good thing you can say about the Three Gorges Damn they are building is that it will replace a lot of these coal plants!



------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!