Looks fine from just skimming, and it’s good to publicize these goals. However, it’s doubtful that most nations would be willing to give up their self-interest to comply with its proposals.
Perhaps then, the sovereignty of nation states should be abolished and surpassed by a global institution, that favor and support public interest by a horizontal process of win-win game strategies. By horizontal I mean that this global institution comes into being by a democratic process beyond the borders of nation states. It is not enough to leave the political process to so-called office of foreign policy and so-called diplomacy high up the vertical axis.
Of course, WeeDie, I also would love for a worldwide egalitarian society where each person had a societally valid (not from self-interest or greed) say. However, the likelihood of that happening on the next ten lifetimes is vanishingly small. I agree that we should work toward any of those goals that we can, but I’m not optimistic about anyone making any major changes soon.
Well, I believe the science of peak oil and the malleability of mind being acted upon by information technology is confronting us with some huge changes. There are new forms of organization restructuring human society and the big-brother paradigm is lagging behind. This can only result in a social cataclysm.
It is kind of like the charter of human rights started by the UN some time ago. It sounds like a great idea at the time but after starting with some good ideas, it degenerates into a tasteless soup of socialist and wacky eco doctrine that would drive us back to the middle ages.
While such degeneration is possible, scepticeye, it isn’t a reason to reject the ideas offhand. It would probably be more useful to identify one or more of the goals that one believes is valid and work toward that. Further, assigning negative terms such as “tasteless soup” and “wacky eco doctrine” isn’t a valid argument against ideas. Better would be to point out the weaknesses in some of the goals.
While such degeneration is possible, scepticeye, it isn’t a reason to reject the ideas offhand. It would probably be more useful to identify one or more of the goals that one believes is valid and work toward that. Further, assigning negative terms such as “tasteless soup” and “wacky eco doctrine” isn’t a valid argument against ideas. Better would be to point out the weaknesses in some of the goals.
Occam
While you may be politically correct, sometimes ideas are so silly they actually do deserve to be dismissed, after all the OP himself asked “Another vaporous declaration?”.
I believe my description was a fair and valid response to that question. The weaknesses are as I mentioned. I read it in full today and it has already degenerated in the style I described.
It sounds such a nice cozy idea at the start but then ...
“Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible”
“Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.”
“Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.”
“Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all family members”
“Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities”
“Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living”
The more I read it the more it started to sound like a beauty pageant speech ... albeit a very long one
I think it sounds like a future of prosperity and a declaration that all living creatures can take pleasure in studying and contemplate. Legal language does not have to be exact and strict. Humans make justice, not laws.
I think the important thing is a document that people can participate in interpreting and discuss, in dialog, or even wars. Perhaps it is necessary to have wars to conform on issues of what constitutes human rights or equity. But still, as a founding document of purpose and principles to bring people together, I find it accurately defined. Even a child is able to understand a great deal of it. This is a good way to provide foundation and common principles for purpose driven human beings.
Law should not be understood only by lawyers, it is for everyone, there to help and guide us.
I recognize the need for traditional law as well, but the legislative branches should be provided with a document that is loosely defined, to avoid setting in stone how society should operate and allow for progressive societies to emerge. Evolutionary processes would keep what works and leave behind the configurations that creates too much internal and external conflict.
So have I, Doug, and the only problem with citizenschallenge’s statement was that he was succinct. Rather than “hoax”, I believe one could substitute “from scepticeye’s posts it appears that he strongly questions all the evidence of global warming, especially that caused by humans and rejects much of it.”
While you may be politically correct, sometimes ideas are so silly they actually do deserve to be dismissed
Ironic coming from someone who seems to claim anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.
I find it tiresome and juvenile when people follow others around different threads and feel they have make smart arsed demeaning comments without any contribution to the topic at hand.
I find it tiresome and juvenile when people follow others around different threads and feel they have make smart arsed demeaning comments without any contribution to the topic at hand.
That’s really precious buddy.
Do I have to make another two page long post, simply listing all the authoritative links I’ve shared with CFI?
But, that’s how it goes with those who can’t, or refuse, to face the evidence being presented ~ ignore it.
When does skeptism, become advocacy, become denial, become lies?
ps. it’s not that I’m following you around, I’m following the denialist arguments around.
I learn from them and in fact probably owe you some credit for helping me crystalize a thought that’s been mulling around in my mind for quite some time. I invite you to read my post:
“Understanding AGW… perhaps the problem lies with our ability, or inability, to comprehend Earth as a real entity?”
