Yanis Varoufakis In the recent Greek bailout and it's imposed crippling austerity Varoufakis resigned as Greek's finance minister. He could take no part in a plan that included debt that would never be paid. This 1 hour interview with Varoufakis covers why he resigned as well as an outline of his vision for a European Union that would be far more democratic. Varoufakis is not a typical politician. He's an academic and a very engaging communicator. An economist that can eloquently explain complex systems. He says the EU is dividing its member countries rather than uniting them. Who could argue? There's a refreshing honest and bold irreverence about this man. Dec 27, 2015
Brand New Politics? Russell Brand is a British actor and comedian known for his excessive lifestyle of drugs, booze and sex. That was then. Now he’s quite the drugs and booze, if not the sex, and has become an interesting and promising spokesperson for getting off intoxicants. He has a real flare for speaking the truth that reminds me of people like George Carlin. Politically he’s not afraid to challenge the establishment as he did in this recent BBC interview in a way that radiates with today’s politically disenchanted youth. And because he’s ‘been there’ with the serious problem of drug addiction this funny guy can be taken seriously and effectively as he demonstrates so well in this excellent BBC one hour documentary. He shows a lot of genuine compassion here.
Some may question Brand’s qualifications for talking about ‘revolution’ and saving the world and suggesting that we need to get it done through ’socialism’ but critics on this point are unfair in my opinion. Who really does have a succinct answer to today’s problems? If Brand can encourage critical discussion on the present system the way Edward Snowdon has opened up the question on unwarranted government surveillance and espionage then that’s terrific. Aug 17, 2015
The Environmental Impact of Air Travel George Montiot of The Guardian has written on this a lot. I’ve noticed that people seem to see the environmental impact of air travel in one of four fundamentally different ways. Here they are:
The lost-cause or too-late position Somehow, I can accept someone believing that the world is beyond saving so why not indulge oneself before the ship goes down. By the way I’m sure this is how the very rich justify their greed. Together with other initiatives we’re talking about tourist travel every chance we get or can afford. I must admit that this is a rational argument and a view that’s difficult to challenge except that I’m of the opinion that if we start to act thoughtfully and with compassion for future generations we might just be able to continue to enjoy an inhabitable biosphere.
The hypocrisy position This is someone who is aware of the problem and understands that we should adjust our lifestyles but chooses to do nothing about it. This leads to cognitive dissonance, holding two conflicting thoughts in our head at the same time. It’s not pleasant because holding guilt is tiring.
The ignorance position This I find hardest to accept. Here is a person going about their lives oblivious to the knowledge that their actions, such as frequent air travel, has a heavy negative impact on the environment while there is abundant evidence that this is so. I think ignorance is inexcusable in this age of information. If a person is in denial that is really the hypocrisy position not the ignorance position.
The technology-will-save-us position This person understands the problem but feels that human ingenuity will save the planet before environmental degradation becomes terminal. This to me is wishful and dangerous. If we rely on technology and if it doesn't work we’re fucked.
Along with any environmentalist I know of it’s my view that a reduction in air travel is part of what we must do if we seriously want to prevent an environmental catastrophe within the next few decades.
It’s all about reducing CO2 emissions. However, some people do not see increasing CO2 emissions as a big issue. If that’s correct then air travel is not so much of an environmental threat. I however go along with the scientific consensus which states that the increase in CO2 emissions is a very serious problem indeed. And this is a key point: the chances of technological advances making a reduction in emissions for aircraft appear to have reached it’s limits while future automobile emissions will likely become far less of a problem with advances such as electric cars that are on the near horizon. We’re approaching a time where driving a car will have little environmental impact while air travel will continue to be significant problem.
I’m not suggesting no air travel I think a big concern today is the increase in “frequent-flyers”. I would add that many people in the world should fly MORE because there is no question that some world travel can certainly be educational and can enrich their lives. It’s too bad that over 90% of the world’s population have never flown. So yes, we are the privileged few. The person that flies every two or three years is not so much of a problem compared to the frequent-fliers who fly several times a year. And lets face it: most tourist travel is about stretching-out on a nice, warm beach in Puerto Vallarta. Or sipping coffee in a charming Parisian café. Great if you’ve done it but how enriching or educational is it if you keep coming back year after year? And when it becomes a frivolous self-indulgence should we not ask ourselves if it’s worth being a large part of the global warming problem? Should we care? Do we care? Feb 17, 2014
Free Music: Is It Theft? We live in a time when the acquisition of property is the basis for the capitalist model. Carried to the extreme the champions of the capitalist model would monetize everything including the water we drink and the air we breath? I don’t accept this.
The internet has given birth to a generation that is suddenly in the position to “stick it to the man”. A generation of tech savvy youth who see the absurdity of market capitalism. I find this very empowering as it is a reminder that even within our democracy, which is considered to be a sham by many of us, there still is some truth in the idea that “the people have the power”. So much so that the internet has become a real threat to the establishment.
I would argue that those who see downloading music as stealing mostly feel this way because they have not figured out the technology. I would ask them that if thirty years ago they had ever received a tape of music from a friend. Or have they ever recorded music from the radio? Or borrowed a record from a friend to make a tape of it? Clearly any of this is no different from downloading music from a torrent site today. Only the technology is different. I would also suggest that the notion of private property is not intrinsically true and that it is a social construct within a flawed capitalist model. It is however deeply seated within our current way of life so that the contemplation of any other system is most unsettling for nearly all of us. But if we are to dream of a better world a discussion of alternative structures needs to be encouraged. Dec 20, 2013