Future of EU...

[JaYmZeE311074]

 

 

-snip-

 

Things are different now for one very important reason - we - the human race now has a clock over it's head - we don't fully understand the planet we live on but we know enough - it is showing us that things are changing and that for us to survive as a species we MUST CHANGE OUR WAYS - money means nothing - it's a human construct that has been warped beyond any useful meaning - we need to be thinking as one and working to the only set of rules that matter - those set by the environment about us - if we continue on the path we are on we are doomed.

 

-snip-

 

We are but dust mites on a turtle's back, with grand delusions of our own importance. When the turtle inevitably dies we will be swept away. And the turtle will die, not by our hands but by natural causes.

 

The logical course of action for the human race would be to exploit to the maximum every available resource and keep our science and technology moving forward no matter the cost to ourselves or the planet until we find another turtle.

 

It is better to exist than to not exist.

 

Yeah - the logical conclusion is for us to use every conceivable method to ensure our survival - ABSOLOUTELY NO WHERE do I say otherwise - but we're not using the technology at our disposal to ensure our survival - if we were - all the power that we currently use from burning fossil fuels for the sole reason of the vested interest of corporations would be generated by wind, wave, solar means - we'd be using Thorium - rather than conventional nuclear power - but we don't because like tesla's superior technology it was disgarded because of vested interest rather than what makes sense - what is efficient and what would make productive and safety the priority rather than profit.

 

How is having planned obsolescence and products deliberately made to break requiring repeat purchases making best use of every resource available to ensure our survival?

 

How does making products 12000 miles away from their planned destination make using every resource at our disposal to ensure our survival make the slightest bit of sense?

 

How does the obscene waste/mindless consumerism economic system we currently use make any sense in terms of ensuring our survival?

 

How many technological advances do you think we know nothing about because they would throw spanners into the works of the dying machine of whatever economic system we use now exist?

 

I have no grand delusions of the human races importance - I made that pretty clear with my statement regarding any believe we are chosen/special at the centre of the universe so what point your making here I have no idea - but I'm damn sure that the only hope for our survival is in us working together with that as our prime directive rather than the pathetic bickering, exploitation and inability to think critically that we currently enjoy.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't have a clue what your trying to say here because your post is full of so many contradictions in so few words that I'm gonna assume your half asleep.

 

EDIT - I no longer consider this a debate - when it gets to the stage that your being pulled up on points you never made it's time to call it quits. I've nothing else to add.

[Aurielius]

 

<snip>

 

EDIT - I no longer consider this a debate - when it gets to the stage that your being pulled up on points you never made it's time to call it quits. I've nothing else to add.

 

Chuckles...you thought this was an actual debate..? silly rabbit...

[sunshinenbrick]

...thought this was an actual debate..? ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

silly rabbit...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RGMage2]

We are but dust mites on a turtle's back, with grand delusions of our own importance...

 

...exploit to the maximum every available resource and keep our science and technology moving forward no matter the cost to ourselves or the planet...

 

It is better to exist than to not exist.

 

Isn't this a contradiction??

 

Does't the turtle also benefit from existing? Which it would do for longer was it not being exploited so. A symbiosis?

 

I share a lot of your sentiment, but I think there is something in the sustainable and considered use of resources, rather than simply using of them as quickly as possible till they are gone... what is the point of the science and technology if you are no longer able to use it, for example?

 

If it is literal it is a contradiction; if it is not literal then it must mean something else. Or perhaps it means nothing, only words with no meaning.

 

The truth is often found in the middle of two extremes. You said all roads lead to Rome, and I respond all roads lead away from Rome. In a literal sense which of us is right? Or are we both wrong? Or perhaps your phrase was not meant to be taken literally.

 

Two maggots infested the flesh of a dead elephant. One maggot said to the other "we should temper our indulgence in this creatures flesh, we must make it last or we will surely starve and not live long enough to grow our wings." The other maggot responded "if we do not eat well then how will we grow strong enough to fly away from this creature's dead carcass?" Or was it a dead mouse? I don't remember.

 

I apologise for my intrusion. I know my words add nothing to your debate, so I will respectfully withdraw and trouble you no more.

 

Carry on debating.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

We are but dust mites on a turtle's back, with grand delusions of our own importance...

 

...exploit to the maximum every available resource and keep our science and technology moving forward no matter the cost to ourselves or the planet...

 

It is better to exist than to not exist.

 

Isn't this a contradiction??

 

Does't the turtle also benefit from existing? Which it would do for longer was it not being exploited so. A symbiosis?

 

I share a lot of your sentiment, but I think there is something in the sustainable and considered use of resources, rather than simply using of them as quickly as possible till they are gone... what is the point of the science and technology if you are no longer able to use it, for example?

 

If it is literal it is a contradiction; if it is not literal then it must mean something else. Or perhaps it means nothing, only words with no meaning.

 

The truth is often found in the middle of two extremes. You said all roads lead to Rome, and I respond all roads lead away from Rome. In a literal sense which of us is right? Or are we both wrong? Or perhaps your phrase was not meant to be taken literally.

 

Two maggots infested the flesh of a dead elephant. One maggot said to the other "we should temper our indulgence in this creatures flesh, we must make it last or we will surely starve and not live long enough to grow our wings." The other maggot responded "if we do not eat well then how will we grow strong enough to fly away from this creature's dead carcass?" Or was it a dead mouse? I don't remember.

 

I apologise for my intrusion. I know my words add nothing to your debate, so I will respectfully withdraw and trouble you no more.

 

Carry on debating.

 

 

Indeed. In fact I agree with a great deal of what you are saying and I think it encapsulates much of what I have been trying to say. I detect a hint of critical irony in your post being of a similar disposition on many occasion myself, however I might be completely wrong. I may also not being making myself and my thoughts clear or comprehensive enough. The problems and solutions are both simple, but at times abstract too, requiring a certain nuance which I likewise think your posts reflect well.

 

Agree to disagree? Even if I am personally a little sure where the one begins and the others ends?

 

War and Peace :wink:

[Unmod]

I'm an unashamed supporter of the EU BUT that doesn't mean I don't recognise at least some of its genuine flaws. The concept itself is a sound one - bluntly there is strength in unity, collective power is used worldwide to influence and even enforce positions. Few if any would argue with a serious coalition of modern states intent on a given course and we've seen what such an organisation is capable of, for good or ill (read the Ahtisaari report or Chilcot). The EU's main purpose is to counter the forces of globalisation and the unpredictability that goes hand in hand with it.

 

Meanwhile, politics and world events go on as usual and here we encounter the problems. You cannot seperate out your prestige project from reality. It has to respond and it has to be effective. In most organic systems this takes very significant time and is done in an orderly manner. The EU does not have that luxury. The world will not wait while you experiment. It works, or it doesn't and when the rulebook encounters an exception it has to be dealt with in real time, under the glare of public scrutiny. Arguably, if the concept was not truly important it would be abandoned in short order due to the political costs. The fact it has not been, like it or not, is a sign that it serves a purpose.

 

Then in 2008 someone blew a hole in the global economy. The forces of globalisation sent a tidal wave against EU shores. They withstood it. We can argue about whether we've actually recovered and what further measures, including creating money so people can spend it (so called helicopter money), will be necessary to genuinely move on from it but the fact is approx $4 trillion later we're still here and we might not have been if they'd called it wrong. We can also ask what might have happened if those states were not acting in concert through a mechanism that allows for it and who people are happy to throw money at until the problem goes away.

 

Following that Syria and Iraq basically implode. Millions cast adrift. The EU rightly recognises that it's a humanitarian catastrophe and that they, by action or inaction, had a hand in it. Again we hit the emergency button. They look under the rules for 'What happens when a state collapses?' and don't find too much to work with, so they make it up on the fly. This unsettles a lot of people. Not because it's a bad idea per se, but because it carries a known unknown along with it in the form of ISIS. The EU accept it realistically as a small risk that they are taking formidable measures against, but if you happen to be in the worng place at the worng time, it's going to hurt. There's no way around this one. ISIS exists and would be a problem regardless. Turning away from it simply fuels the problem and helps no one.

 

Then comes Brexit. Half the UK says 'Ok, I can see where this is going and it works pretty well most of the time. It's not a marriage made in heaven but I'll stick with it'. The other half says 'There's a problem here and I think it's you, bye'. The EU gets all sulky and despondent for a bit as you might expect. But they're still there and arguably we've still got unfinished business. We've not quite let go and to be honest I don't think we will. After the break up we start looking at the facts, rather than the grudges and petty arguments we were focussing on. Even our 'political masters' the EU recognise that we don't have a clue what happens now and back off.

 

With that as a backdrop you'd wonder why it still exists. The simple answer is common purpose. It's a lot better than individual pursuit. Countries of a like mind need to trade, communicate and cooperate. Nothing's going to change that. Nothing.

 

It's highly likely that the EU will bend to the will of its members and carry out reforms that work for the majority. There are already signs this is on the cards in terms of border controls and immigration more generally and it's just as likely in other areas. The fact this happened post-Brexit is ironic but that's politics. Brexit proved that the EU is not all seeing and all knowing. It can be defied or ignored. Failure to reform henceforth is basically suicidal.

[HeyYou]

 

The EU's main purpose is to counter the forces of globalisation and the unpredictability that goes hand in hand with it.

It is? From the outside, looking in, it appears that the EU's purpose is to TAKE ADVANTAGE of globalization, by having a larger bargaining base......

[Unmod]

 

It is? From the outside, looking in, it appears that the EU's purpose is to TAKE ADVANTAGE of globalization, by having a larger bargaining base......

 

 

The initial idea was to restrain Germany's power. At some point they saw globalisation coming and decided that having a common platform made a lot more sense. It essentially turned the tables, giving th economic juggernaut little choice but to deal with them on their terms, or lose out in a big way. It also ensured that everyone got a piece by playing to their strengths. Some would still gain more than others but if the market needed x it was a pretty safe bet someone would have it on tap.

[sunshinenbrick]

Globalisation will be there whatever happens. The international trade of resources, labour etc... etc... will go ahead anyway because that is essentially the only way it will work. If people actually believe that things will stop 'at the borders' so to speak, then they have bought into a lie. The real question is WHAT KIND of globalisation we will have.

 

The EU situation is a complex one because a lot of it was built on positive ideals. The key word here is 'ideals' and it shares many of the same problems that the 'American Dream' has in that not everybody can have everything. Many of the things we have entitled ourselves to and the freedoms given to citizens has to have a cost somewhere. For the last few decades this has of course come at the expense of lesser developed parts of the world. Of course they have made some progress too, but now that they are think 'yeah, I wouldn't mind having part of that dream as well' then all the people who have been living it for so long start to freak out because they don't like the idea of losing the things they have gained - even though for the most part we haven't actually gained or achieved even a fraction of the things we like to give ourselves credit for i.e. did you actually make your phone, mine for minerals in Africa, or work in a sweatshop in Bangladesh? Not likely, no.

 

So when the s*** starts hitting the fan do we look to ourselves and each other and think 'I should give these things up and live more within my means'? Again, no, not likely. Instead we follow the narrative of 'it's them, over their, it's their fault.' It's an easy sell in many cases, the ironic thing being that we will end up losing out anyway as the money will only ever go up the chain and we will keep frantically digging to scrape the bottom of the barrel, by which time it is too little too late.

 

Now the EU, as with many other global organistaions or corporations, are not necessarily, inherently, 'evil'. There is potential in the world to do good things as I think James pointed out in his post. Not using planned obsolescence and actually using technology to improve lives and bring people together, as a brief example, rather than feeding the profit driven industry that doesn't actually have any but a very select few people as beneficiaries.

 

The EU in many ways is what people want it to be, unfortunately it has been pretty much hijacked by a corporate a political elite who are in many ways sociopathic and are losing regard for people because... it isn't 'profitable'. Of course it all depends how you define 'profit' though, and I think we have an endemic misunderstanding and disassociation with the things that really matter, food, shelter, love of other human beings etc... No, I MUST have the new iPhone or BMW otherwise my life just simply isn't worth living...

 

The rejection of the EU is a rejection of these principles and the disease that has infected us, I do not really believe it is a rejection of our fellow wo/men. However this is not how it will be presented to us, it will be another dose of 'it's them, over there, it's their fault', and nothing will actually change for the better for us common folk. Like I said, globalistaion will continue, but now it will happen behind closed doors and become harder for the plebeians to make the bigger changes. We have become our own worst enemies in many regards, but then this isn't to say we haven't been encouraged to do so either. The packaging might be different but the product is still the same - divide and rule.

[Unmod]

 

The rejection of the EU is a rejection of these principles and the disease that has infected us, I do not really believe it is a rejection of our fellow wo/men.

 

That's largely true even for it's supporters. It works perfectly well as a a trade platform, spectacularly so in fact, but the global disease of efficiency and the ruthlessness that inherently goes with it is unacceptable. You don't make large parts of your population irrelevant and get away with it. Simple. The one caveat is 2008. That sunk the established rules without trace and they're still trying to figure out what works. Hopefully they'll relax a bit once that happens.