Category Archives: Politics

The Hypocrisy of “Unsustainable Development” (aka Wrong Pulpit, Sir!)

Reply

Here we go with another environmental conference yet again hearing of impending Doom&Gloom

TERRADAILY – Earth Forum Hears Dire Warnings Of Environmental Collapse

Addressing the two-day forum's main topic — the feasibility of sustainable development for billions of people worldwide — [Jeffrey Sachs, director of the UN Millennium Project] painted a grim picture of systemic environmental collapse, coupled with war, famine and pandemic disease. The astonishing pace of economic growth in Asia and the increasing demands of development in the industrialised world will in a matter of decades, Sachs argued, impose a burden far beyond that which the world is already woefully failing to carry. "It is the central challenge we face on the planet," he said. "Every single major ecological system we have is already under profound stress."

This is not today's news.

I remember Clare Short, former UK minister, making a similar point

And the point is, "sorry guys but if you're poor today you must stay that way"

This is an incredibly baseless remark. Let's put aside the fact that apart than in the mind of the environment-as-religion lobby, there is little indication for any impending gloom. Let's also put aside the fact that economic development has in the last few decades taken millions out of poverty

The biggest hypocrisy is that neither Mr Sachs, nor Ms Short have shown any intention to show the way, move to a remote area, and live off the land to eliminate their own contribution to this baseless "disaster"

I remember those in the 70's, preaching collapse by overpopulation, to whom the only serious answer should have been "when are you going to help the world, and eliminate yourself?"

Obviously we don't need Jeffrey Sachs to act so drastically.

But who would accept Marie Antoinette talking of there being not enough bread, while eating croissants?

What is the meaning of telling humanity that it can't get rich, from the pulpit of Columbia University's Alfred Lerner Hall?

 

Prospect Magazine, Durkheim, and the myth of useful Sociology

Reply

Two days ago I bought for the first time Prospect Magazine, self-styled "Politics/Essay/Argument – Britain's Intelligent Conversation"

I confess I must give it a second or even a third try before subscribing as the quality of some articles is very good, but other entries made my jaws drop so much they started sweeping Cannon Street Station's floor

Example of the latter is Paul Broks inanely describing his dreams of a tsunami the night before it happened, or precious printable space mysteriously reserved for poet-writer-critic Al Alvarez to tell us about his fear of spiders (is anybody trying to make reality TV look of a similar intellectual stature as Plato?)

I won't even waste my time to describe the vapourous contents of the "Is God to blame" debate (apologies to the term "debate")

And let's forget those disturbing cartoons (disturbing in the sense that it is disturbing to think anybody would laugh at any of them)

==========

Example of what could really be interesting about Prospect is its calendar of UK events and lectures

Another is the (free online) essay on Emile Durkheim, the French sociologist of almost a 100 years ago whose ideas ("meritocracy meets social justice") are so much behind the modern concept of Social Democracy, including much of what we know as "New Labour"

==========

I particularly agree with Durkheim's finding that an individual is very much the product of his or her society. I have lost count of the number of times I thought I was doing something out of my own personal free will, only to find out I was just following some kind of modern fashion What I don't agree on is the promotion of social cohesion by the reinvention of the Guilds; and in general, the whole concept of social engineering for a good cause For the former, think of Italian Fascism. For the latter, look at Marxism-Leninism.I really can't see much difference between heavy-handed state-santioned interventions to define what's socially acceptable and some clumsy environmental interventions that just made everything worse

Perhaps we simply don't know enough about society to be able to influence it positively.

A useful, practical Sociology, to paraphrase the Mahatma, would be a very good idea…

Oh, if only we had one…

Police and Controlled Immigration – Letter to John Horam MP

Reply

John Horam MP
House of Commons

XXX, 27 Oct. 04

Dear John Horam MP
I have been an XXX resident for more than 4 years. I do not have the right to vote, despite paying taxes, helping the community and the society as a whole by working honestly as everybody else. Change of citizenship would be possible, but it is a long process and there is neither practical incentive nor encouragement to do it.

If I’d vote, I would find it very hard to justify choosing the Conservative Party, whose only excellence in my eyes in 7 years of UK residency has been in taking the wrong side of almost every possible issue.

Nevertheless, I was aghast to find 2 particularly disturbing questions in your recent questionnaire.

Question 3: “As regards anti-social behaviour, do you think that the top priority should be getting more police out on the beat?”

This does strike me as populism, in the sense of proposing the “obvious” solution that everyone would in theory agree upon.

But in practice, it is well known that that is no solution at all. In order to effectively tackle head-on anti-social behaviour, the number of security forces “out on the beat” would have to be enormous, to the point of transforming Britain in a police state.

Police themselves are aware of that, and if I were one of them I would be incensed by the underlying suggestion that policemen and women are not doing their job properly at this moment.

You may also want to consider scientific analyses of the first consequence of “more police out on the beat”: people feeling less secure.

It is the non-obvious (but nonetheless true) result published on The Economist, 17/7/2003 (available on the Internet at
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1927126).
Question 4: “Would you support a strict limit on the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year?”

This smells like an even nastier version of populism. Leaving aside the question about how to calculate the value of such “strict limit”, I can only note that there is no mention of what to do with asylum seekers. Are you by any chance suggesting sending back to their countries, people that may be tortured/raped/killed upon arrival, only because some kind of quota has been reached? I hope not.

In general, how do you see the UK strengthened by having law-abiding people waste hours, weeks and months to legally get permission to contribute to the British society by working honestly as everybody else? On what basis are you implying that the UK is so weak-founded that it can tolerate only a certain “strict” amount of immigrants?

And would a “strict limit” not result actually in more opportunities, more money and more power for the criminals that would smuggle even more people than they do today?

Finally, how do you reconcile your “strict limitation of immigration” with the Gospel of Matthew, 25:34-36?

[…] Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Is Christianity not part of the British Heritage that the Conservative Party is supposed to champion and help future generations inherit?

================================================

That said, I sincerely hope the Conservative Party comes back to play a serious, effective opposition: for the good of this Country cannot be the overpowering domination of one political force (Labour or otherwise)
Best regards,

Maurizio Morabito
XXX