Ableton Forum

krulecello wrote:

Forge. wrote:

krulecello wrote:
lol.... "I never didn't admit that" and then a whole lot of pointing the finger at government.

see this right here is your problem. You are confusing the monumental task (that a lot of people work very hard on i.e. GetUp etc...) of trying to get the government to take action with "finger pointing".

So how do you suggest we get all the massive industries to change to clean energy sources?

I'm not confused Forge, I'm waiting for you to be honest.

You mean you're waiting for me to agree with you?

I said pages back I'm not getting rid of my car if that's what you mean.

this was just on facebook from GetUp

https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/grea ... t-our-reef

Who is going to do this if it's all up to individuals with no government involvement? Somebody actually has to physically stop them from dredging.

someone else posted this

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Forge. wrote:
I know, but I think the importance of pushing back and getting the governments and corporations to act better is getting overshadowed by all this. The absolute biggest task we have is changing them. It's actually THE most important bit and it's also the hardest, so it's also the 'old people with computers' scenario on steroids — because it feels too difficult to get them to change everyone just says "government sucks" and gives up. In fact next to this challenge giving up a car is easy. It has nothign to do with "blame" or not taking responsibilty - in fact if anything it is a much bigger responsibility because it's much, much harder.

Forge, this is wishful thinking. There is no chance of getting governments and corporations to act better.

Actually, while as you know I've always had plenty to say about how corrupt things are, I'm marginally more hopeful about the government in Australia than I was in the UK.. I think over there it's possibly too far gone, but I think smaller populations have a slightly better chance at making their governments more accountable. Australia's still far from great in that respect though, but last election when Rudd had just been kicked out a lot of the protest votes went to the greens instead of the Tories and they forced Labor to go back on their promise not to introduce a carbon tax... of course we've just had another coup in reverse and Rudd is now saying he'll get rid of it so that he'll get voted back in because the swinging voters are more of a problem for him than green voters as Labor will get Green preferences anyway, so it's almost academic, but that was some progress at least. 2 steps forward, 1 back...maybe...

Let's see what happens when Scotland leaves the union next year though.. they will probably go more the way of Scandanavian countries and probably put a lot more effort into things like clean energy, and Westminster might get a good solid kick up the arse from the shock of losing them a long with their north sea oil and having to find a home for all the nuclear weapons on the Clyde all of a sudden. That should stir up a few debates over who will be lumped with them at least.

Look, I'm really not saying government provides THE answer, I'm just saying this idea that they are irrelevant is not just wrong, it's actually dangerous. When people stop having any faith whatsoever that government can do anything at all in countries like the UK where voting is not compulsory then you get situations like now where Tories get in and do whatever evil shit they like without any accountability, like shaft disabled people then give themselves a pay rise. Yes, it's mostly an exercise in the lesser of two evils, but it's worth doing even just for the small benefits that amounts to.

But actually, as the last election showed here in Australia, it's actually possible for Greens to get elected, and we need to keep that momentum going. They might not work miracles, but they will definitely do more than Tories.

krulecello wrote:

Forge. wrote:

krulecello wrote:[
How about admitting the role you play?

again, I never didn't admit that. In fact I told you many times throughout the course of this thread that I think you are doing good and that you're right that cars are damaging etc etc

What I took great exception to was your assertion that government is irrelevant and that there's no point coming up with less damaging cars because we need to get rid of them altogether. You are taking this personal responsibility idea to the opposite extreme and not acknowleging the bit where we live in a society that needs to work on this together and legislate and act together so that WHEN all those millions of people DON'T give up their cars the cars they drive are at least far less damaging.

Do you think the carbon tax would have happened without public pressure and more people voting green? Kevin Rudd said first time around in 2007 that climate change was one of the big topics people talked about. Is it the total answer? no. Is it a start? yes.

For the last time, I'm not telling you to not do what you're doing, or to not encourage other people to do the same, quite the opposite, I'm just saying that saying government is irrelevant or that there's no point building clean cars is actually bordering on dangerously negligent.

lol.... "I never didn't admit that" and then a whole lot of pointing the finger at government.

what's saddest here is that you translated what I said there to finger pointing at the government... i just re-read that and I really don't see how anyone could interpret what I said there as that... unless they were just desperately trying to attack me personally for saying something they didn't like.

FWIW - you have actually challenged me, and that's good. You have made me think about this a lot the last few days. I thought that was obvious by the way I took all that time to write all this stuff, and I'm pretty surprised and disappointed at the response you've just given me actually. If you really want to persuade people then you need to listen to their point of view and not just insult them when they disagree with your already firmly established view. Most of what I said to you is largely sympathetic to your view actually, you will find a lot more people aren't even close to that.

Funk N. Furter wrote:Anyone else read about the cold period we seem to be entering into, caused by low sunspot activity?

I heard it was insignificant compared to our emissions. But maybe it could buy us a few years, if it happens.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/04 ... on-the-way

Funk N. Furter wrote:

shadx312 wrote:I was made to inspire, not be realistic, anyway

Well, boycotts can help to inspire individuals, we just have to be frank about their limitations.

That's a good thing, being frank. I was responding more to cello saying I have a good heart actually, which is a nice way of telling someone they "ain't too bright".

I don't spend much on political/economic/historic issues. Most of my brain goes to the creative and technical areas. Not as well rounded as an upstanding educated fellow, perhaps.

activists boycott nasty products yet. The good way to attack these corporations (macdonalds, coca cola, the Church etc.) is via the moms and grandmas: once they understand these corporations are nasty and dangerous for sweet kids and cute animals, they stop buying their products and tell their friends and relatives to do the same. For the rest, you can't change an idiot (fascists, dumb yankees, rich racists, priests etc.): these ones will keep on loving and buying weapons, expensive cars, underage and/or violent sex, drugs etc. In this case, the only solution is sabotage and riot.

shadx312 wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:

shadx312 wrote:I was made to inspire, not be realistic, anyway

Well, boycotts can help to inspire individuals, we just have to be frank about their limitations.

That's a good thing, being frank. I was responding more to cello saying I have a good heart actually, which is a nice way of telling someone they "ain't too bright".

I don't spend much on political/economic/historic issues. Most of my brain goes to the creative and technical areas. Not as well rounded as an upstanding educated fellow, perhaps.

Ha! it's funny how we interpret things differently. I took that as a totally genuine comment designed specifically to make me feel that despite all the time and effort I've put into trying to make well thought out reasoned comments in this thread that my heart is black as the charcoal pits of hades because I disagreed with the basic premise of the OP.

The key is to stop having kids. You’d have no personal reason to give a damn about the longevity of the planet while at the same time ironically cutting back on the need for planet destroying resources. Two rights make a right.

beats me wrote:The key is to stop having kids. You’d have no personal reason to give a damn about the longevity of the planet while at the same time ironically cutting back on the need for planet destroying resources. Two rights make a right.

... you forget kids are funny and innocent. It's you that don't work, not kids

myrnova wrote:

beats me wrote:The key is to stop having kids. You’d have no personal reason to give a damn about the longevity of the planet while at the same time ironically cutting back on the need for planet destroying resources. Two rights make a right.

... you forget kids are funny and innocent. It's you that don't work, not kids

…you forget all kids grow up to be adults.

Beats, I tried visualizing how your population management idea could work, and the only positive aspect was being able to teleport Jenny Agutter on demand to my apartment.

beats me wrote:The key is to stop having kids. You’d have no personal reason to give a damn about the longevity of the planet while at the same time ironically cutting back on the need for planet destroying resources. Two rights make a right.

The key is for blacks, Indians and the Chinese to stop having kids. Or do you really object to Switzerland's 1.5 fertility rate, which being below a sustainable level of at least 2.1 would ultimately lead to the extinction of the Swiss?

To be clear, are you saying that there are too many blacks, or that you wish to see the Swiss people wiped out?

You raciss'

Jack McOck wrote:

beats me wrote:The key is to stop having kids. You’d have no personal reason to give a damn about the longevity of the planet while at the same time ironically cutting back on the need for planet destroying resources. Two rights make a right.

The key is for blacks, Indians and the Chinese to stop having kids. Or do you really object to Switzerland's 1.5 birth rate, which being below a sustainable level of at least 2.1 would ultimately lead to the extinction of the Swiss?

To be clear, are you saying that there are too many blacks, or that you wish to see the Swiss people wiped out?

You raciss'

Well really it’s time for the world’s poor (in every country) to stop seeing baby creation as their favorite pastime and crafts project.

A simple questionnaire can provide the answer.

Can you support yourself?

If you answered no or barely then NO KIDS FOR YOU.