4 ms·

So was Ireland, were not doing too bad now, thank you

by dcc1 13y ago

dredmorbius 13y ago
And for anyone who discounts the affects of English dominion over Ireland, look up the history of the Irish Potato Famine, during which England continued exports of grain and beef from Ireland to England. This was while one million people died of starvation, and a million more emigrated (most to the US and Canada), a fifth to a quarter of the island's population. A classic case of distribution inequity. The implications in terms of home rule and ongoing political strife between Ireland and England persist to the present time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) Similar circumstances accompanied the Holodomor -- the Ukranian famine (then part of the USSR) from 1932-1933 in which 2.4-7.5 million people died, again while food was being exported to support the Russian SSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ukrainian_famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ukrainian_famine The point: history is rife with inequities. Addressing the problems we face now is going to have to involve setting those aside. I've speculated that it might be literacy (allowing records of the inequities to be preserved) which has a certain relationship with perpetrating the memory of such injustices (though it's also been pointed out that ignorant societies can be mobilized by demagogues). In the instant case, I think it's fair for India to call for concessions by industrialized nations, but it's ultimately self-defeating to pursue a "growth" policy which will be anything but.
- tks2103 13y ago
  The general point "history is rife with inequities" is not going to mean anything to any developing nation. "History is rife with inequities" only means something to rich westerners. You are not going to get India on board by claiming Ireland had it just as bad. India's GDP per capita is $1500. Ireland's is $45000. That's a factor of 30. China is going to think the same way. They are going to see any bluster from western countries about emissions as thinly veiled attacks on their ability to industrialize. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    "history is rife with inequities" is not going to mean anything to any developing nation. There are plenty of developing nations with their own histories of conflict. India and Pakistan come to mind. Much of Africa. Much of SE Asia and (take your pick) Japan and/or China (I'm omitting the colonial cases of Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the US here). So: you're wearing LDC blinders. And my broader point is we need to get over this. Not ignore it, but get over it.
    - tks2103 13y ago
      Just to be clear, we're talking in the context of emissions. In the context of emissions, it's perfectly reasonable for a developing country to say "Well, we were just colonized, so we're not really keen on reducing our competitiveness to fix a problem you created" to a western country. "History is rife with inequities", will not mean anything to them. And if you want to fix the problem of emissions, you need to understand that, instead of just saying "Well these developing countries are sure being jerks by blocking talks!" What is an LDC blinder, btw?
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        LDC: less-developed country. Blinder: inability to see (or acknowledge) an issue. It's a case of being so vested in an un/underpriviledged mindset that you justify or dismiss harmful actions on your own part. Blocking talks (and I'll have to give the article / broader story a closer read to see how accurate that is) is a dick move, plain and simple. Making an alternate proposal (and I'd be more than happy to consider normalizing CO2 emissions per capita as an alternative) would work for me. When a significant aspect of the Slate article dealt not with CO2 emissions but with HFCs -- hydroflourocarbons, used as refrigerants and themselves potent and long-lived greenhouse gases -- it becomes rather more difficult to pull the carbon / colonization card. Which is just what India are doing here. You've gone on the attack against several people in this thread, largely on the "India was oppressed" card. Not to put too fine a point on it: that's not productive. If you want to introduce that fact into your debate, I'd suggest finding an alternative argument.
tks2103 13y ago
The comment I responded to pointed out that India has different circumstances surrounding its industrialization because it has more advanced technology and medicine. I was pointing out that it is disingenuous to claim India has different circumstances if you are going to point out technology and medicine, but not that it was colonized as recently as the late 40s. If you want to point out countries that are doing fine after colonization, I would think America would be the best example.

So was Ireland, were not doing too bad now, thank you

by dcc1 13y ago

So was Ireland, were not doing too bad now, thank you

And for anyone who discounts the affects of English dominion over Ireland, look up the history of the Irish Potato Famine, during which England continued exports of grain and beef from Ireland to England. This was while one million people died of starvation, and a million more emigrated (most to the US and Canada), a fifth to a quarter of the island's population. A classic case of distribution inequity. The implications in terms of home rule and ongoing political strife between Ireland and England persist to the present time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) Similar circumstances accompanied the Holodomor -- the Ukranian famine (then part of the USSR) from 1932-1933 in which 2.4-7.5 million people died, again while food was being exported to support the Russian SSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ukrainian_famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ukrainian_famine The point: history is rife with inequities. Addressing the problems we face now is going to have to involve setting those aside. I've speculated that it might be literacy (allowing records of the inequities to be preserved) which has a certain relationship with perpetrating the memory of such injustices (though it's also been pointed out that ignorant societies can be mobilized by demagogues). In the instant case, I think it's fair for India to call for concessions by industrialized nations, but it's ultimately self-defeating to pursue a "growth" policy which will be anything but.

tks2103 13y ago
The general point "history is rife with inequities" is not going to mean anything to any developing nation. "History is rife with inequities" only means something to rich westerners. You are not going to get India on board by claiming Ireland had it just as bad. India's GDP per capita is $1500. Ireland's is $45000. That's a factor of 30. China is going to think the same way. They are going to see any bluster from western countries about emissions as thinly veiled attacks on their ability to industrialize. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  "history is rife with inequities" is not going to mean anything to any developing nation. There are plenty of developing nations with their own histories of conflict. India and Pakistan come to mind. Much of Africa. Much of SE Asia and (take your pick) Japan and/or China (I'm omitting the colonial cases of Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the US here). So: you're wearing LDC blinders. And my broader point is we need to get over this. Not ignore it, but get over it.
  - tks2103 13y ago
    Just to be clear, we're talking in the context of emissions. In the context of emissions, it's perfectly reasonable for a developing country to say "Well, we were just colonized, so we're not really keen on reducing our competitiveness to fix a problem you created" to a western country. "History is rife with inequities", will not mean anything to them. And if you want to fix the problem of emissions, you need to understand that, instead of just saying "Well these developing countries are sure being jerks by blocking talks!" What is an LDC blinder, btw?
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      LDC: less-developed country. Blinder: inability to see (or acknowledge) an issue. It's a case of being so vested in an un/underpriviledged mindset that you justify or dismiss harmful actions on your own part. Blocking talks (and I'll have to give the article / broader story a closer read to see how accurate that is) is a dick move, plain and simple. Making an alternate proposal (and I'd be more than happy to consider normalizing CO2 emissions per capita as an alternative) would work for me. When a significant aspect of the Slate article dealt not with CO2 emissions but with HFCs -- hydroflourocarbons, used as refrigerants and themselves potent and long-lived greenhouse gases -- it becomes rather more difficult to pull the carbon / colonization card. Which is just what India are doing here. You've gone on the attack against several people in this thread, largely on the "India was oppressed" card. Not to put too fine a point on it: that's not productive. If you want to introduce that fact into your debate, I'd suggest finding an alternative argument.

tks2103 13y ago

The comment I responded to pointed out that India has different circumstances surrounding its industrialization because it has more advanced technology and medicine. I was pointing out that it is disingenuous to claim India has different circumstances if you are going to point out technology and medicine, but not that it was colonized as recently as the late 40s. If you want to point out countries that are doing fine after colonization, I would think America would be the best example.