All posts in the topic How will future Cantabrians deal with issues? (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in Canterbury Public Issues Forum

Summary

There are 5 posts — by 5 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Tim Kerr at Dec 04 10:07 UTC

From: Brian Sandle Date: Nov 07 04:07 UTC Short link

Rik Tindall wrote:
> Farewell Kevin Heays, thanks for your written contributions.
>
> It is sad indeed to lose the Kaikoura Mayor from our online community. Many
are the challenges to netizenry. These exist here, alongside the communication
opportunities, as greatly if not more so as they do in the analog world - ask
Barack!
>
> Regards, Rik
>
>
I see Kevin Heays wrote about the booze buses.

Perhaps he feels that the group is not giving enough to local issues, in
later unsubbing.

I find it ironic? that he unsubbed on the midwifery thread. There we are
thinking about the future Cantabrians.

I am wondering what stage an antenatal carer can start to deal with
alcohol excess by pregnant girls/women.
Fetal alcohol syndrome may be responsible for some Cantabrians' later
inability to deal adequatrely with the issues of Canterbury life.

So maybe we need to design some more of the City experience for simpler
lives.

Kevin O'Connell was referring to the R18 in the ALCP policy. But we know
that with the  R18 alcohol policy it rapidly gets sold down to young
teenagers.
If the probelms of drugs/alcohol are a health issue, then we need a
framework for disabled minds as we do for disabled bodies. That doesn't
just mean shopkeepers having to be prepared to spend more time cleaning
up offensive stuff. Encourage people to walk home for the pubs but you
might put a few urinals about, for a _start_.

I suppose I am turning people off.

There is a risk this election that people feel problems are best solved
by the market place, with reduced taxes and more private paying for
services instead. How does that deal, for many of the populace, with the
big lag between infancy and decision making later?

From: paul scott Date: Nov 07 21:37 UTC Short link

No Brian, you are not turning people off,
you are one of our bright sparks, and you bring  good intellect here, and so
does Rik,
even though he is Green and fundamentally unprepared for the reality to come,
we are not allowed to talk about National issues here,
like how to change the Reserve Bank Act,
maybe Andrew could make amendments to the 'local only' policy
but going back back to the start,
As far as I am concerned the Mayor of Kaikoura should be required to write in
at least once a week,

paul scott

From: Rik Tindall Date: Nov 12 21:34 UTC Short link

Brian, I think we are just sampling the politically engaged, way of the future
here:

"E-Democracy.Org - The Civil Online Town Hall".

So don't be put off by rejection. Remember, that has been the norm until now.
The average politician is used to extensive buffers, including filtered and
partial print media, through which to dodge accountability. So perhaps this
real-time, real democracy has them running scared: it challenges directly the
shallow celebrity culture into which debasement wants to cast politics; it
charges no admission fee, and no subscription. Only exceptionalness can cut
through the prevalence of spin. Carry on, to be that change.

Paul, thanks. But it is _only_ the Greens who are 'fundamentally prepared for
the reality to come', by consistently telling it like it is. Only the Greens,
with profile, have identified the source of the present "crisis" and offered
effective remedial action that someday soon we can collectively take:

Peak Oil 101

The speculative petroleum bubble burst, taking down with it investment
liquidity across the board. Now, by fair means or foul, the shark pool will get
the inflation process going again - to admit more prey. But antediluvian
brains, lunging to instinct, do not fathom the supply glitch. Because the
economic slump is caused by resource limits (despite the market creatures'
obfuscation that abstract credit is real) - where resource limits cause
'regulation by nature' - extinction derives from the Neanderthal response:
'less regulation'. The drive is on to "cut red tape" (remove preservation
means) for capital accumulation to restart. Artificiality can reassert itself
thus. So the reversal may be temporarily reversed, and even coincide with a
change of government, but it will return harder, sooner and still more damaging
- the next time around.

Yet regulation by society is so much kinder than regulation by nature, a la
Hurricane Katrina and "credit crunch" 2008. Sound resource management is what
we must protect and extend.

Yes, we need Green sustainable (long-term) solutions, of renewable energy, of
safe local production of food, of social justice and responsibility, and the
like. And we need these solutions now.

"Think global, act *local*" looks very much like this.

Kia kaha, Rik

From: John Veitch Date: Dec 03 11:49 UTC Short link

My good friend and sometimes work colleague Tim Kerr, has been having a
wonderful time expounding the foolishness of reacting too quickly to the
increase in oil prices and taking the mickey out on those who believe
that we should act now to counteract climate change.

Tim's a fundamentally honest bloke. His reasoning about prices and the
absolutely null effect of what we do TODAY for the future of the planet
is CORRECT. But even so Tim and I are at opposite ends of the continuum
on many topics.

So let us talk about Canterbury, Canterbury businesses, Canterbury
farms, the people who live in Canterbury, people like you and me.  You
CHOOSE how you live your life. Like your mother said, "You make your bed
and you have to lie in it."

We do need to have successful businesses and we do need to strive to
live satisfying and fruitful lives. But we don't have destroy our local
environment doing that, and we can be a living example that humanity
need not destroy the Earth, if we choose. Probably that won't stop them,
but each of us can only do what "I" can do.

The way we've all been trained, we assume that "growth" is desirable and
should be planned for. We're even building bigger houses for the fatter
people we expect to be in the future. Two car and three car garages are
normal in newer houses. Even our television screens get bigger and
bigger every year.

Any fool can work out that human bodies have a "best size" for health
and for efficiency and for long life. Most of us (including me, but not
Tim) are bigger than that "best size".  And since we are not fools, we
know that we need to exercise more and to be discriminating about what
we eat. A waist larger than 100cm is TOO LARGE.

The human body has a best size.  I'm picking that lots of other things
have potential to get too big, and out of proportion to the "best
size".  Shopping mall's for instance. Farms? Parking Lot's? Coal Mines?

Humanity has been sent a signal, some of us haven't read it yet. Our
present lifestyle is unsustainable. It's not the lifestyle of African's,
or Indian's  or even of most Chinese that's unsustainable, it's western
lifestyles that are the problem. For two reasons: One, that other people
seek quite rightly to have the best possible lifestyle, like our's, and
in a JUST world, that should be their birth right. Two, "one" isn't
possible, the environment of the earth won't permit such overuse.
Sustainability is what GREEN issues are about, and environment doesn't
give a tinkers dam about your politics, call yourself capitalist,
socialist, communist, nationalist or pigheaded and stubborn if choose.
If you, and your family and me and my family don't find ways to LIVE
SUCCESSFULLY without "growth" we pass on a poisoned future to our
grandchildren.

How do we live without "growth"? Well that's something we are soon going
to discover. But it can be done, human beings did it for a few thousand
years, long ago. It's about changing our KNOWLEDGE and shifting our
EXPECTATIONS. This issue is right at the heart of what it means to be a
modern human being. We have to discover a "best size"  for how we live
and conduct ourselves.  What that means exactly, I can't say, but always
bigger next year has a sure and certain result; environmental
destruction and early deaths.

From: Tim Kerr Date: Dec 04 10:07 UTC Short link

I appreciate your comments Brian. Please do not think I am a "market rules"
devotee. I'm certainly not saying that that is what I "want". All I am
saying is that economics is like air - it is there. It is the sum of
behaviour of individuals.... All the high-minded ideas of resource restraint
and "fairness" in trading is nice, but in the end individuals do as they
pretty much want and if one person is "fair" then that makes it easier for
someone else to benefit from that particular sacrifice.

When we do something "fair' in NZ like apply a decent wage, then someone
else makes the same product - or provides the same service cheaper somewhere
else. We are at the bottom of the world and if we raise our prices then we
lose our markets. Now, when world prices drop we - as a country - are stuck
with the high compliance costs of "fair" labour regulations, ACC - an outfit
that suddenly wants even MORE cash!! and other add-on costs.

I chuckled when you observed that the "right" (in my opinion) seems more
militaristic. I think you may be right (er.. correct)! I see the massive
military presence in countries like Malaysia or Singapore - and our little
army is quite diminutive. It does worry me... but then so does seeing a
bunch of soldiers taking to the streets.... I wonder who is defending what!
Nevertheless, without a decent military force free trade (or fair trade)
fails. This happened here in NZ - in Canterbury and Marlborough.... As the
Ngai Tahu moved south from the North Island steadily eliminating the
relatively defenseless southern Maori... only to find they were over-taken
by Te Rauparaha's men 200 years later. There was a trade balance for periods
of time - where Ngai Tahu traded kelp-bags of mutton birds for northern
kumara and sub-tropical products... and traded in greenstone.... But they
lacked the defensive ability to match Te Rauparaha's fighting forces - until
Bloody Jack from Southland provided materiel and a cohesive defensive
strategy.

So, the debate may seem to be straying from Canterbury interests - but if we
do not look a little cynically at so-called resource constraint, we may find
our resources have gone to a different part of the world.

If that makes any sense....


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Sandle" <bsandle@snap.net.nz>
To: <canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] How will future Cantabrians deal with
issues? And what happened to the oil crisis?


> Tim Kerr wrote:
>> Tom, I get a bit annoyed when people cite exponential concepts regarding
>> damage to the environment, climate change, economic growth.... my
>> income...
>> etc.
>>
>> The worst recent case was the exponential example of bacteria in a
>> controlled environment cited on this forum. It was silly, because
>> exponential expansion always has some form of limiting factor. For
>> example
>> we have been subjected to the "threat" of exponential population
>> expansion.
>> In fact, the population is declining - in wealthy countries.
> Isn't it when someone gets busy and spreads the message that people
> start to respond? Just leaving it to the market or 'natural' restraint
> is a rather wasteful way to do it.
>
>>  We have to
>> import young people to keep our vine yards, dairy farms and old peoples'
>> homes in business!
> The natural restraint process will be too slow to avoid a lot of pain as
> these younsters become old in their turn, if we are still getting in
> more to support the next round and so on.
>
>>  (Exponential growth of bacteria in a test tube would stop
>> once the bacteria ran out of food - which is one reason why we cannot,
>> for
>> example get 95% alcohol in beer, despite a potential demand for the
>> stuff!)
>>
> But in poor countries a lack on food often increases the population as
> people have more children to help them earn and look after them as they
> get older, and to replace the ones who die through effects of
> malnutrition. Things get pretty bad before reproduction ceases. The last
> people to still be able to reproduce are the ones who have the 'thrifty'
> gene - they store fat a whole lot better. Then if food becomes more
> available the resultant population gets very obese and morbid.
>
>
>> To say the "Greens" are not left of centre in politics is a bit trite -
>> for
>> most Green members seem to have an anti-war, pacifist non-violent element
>> in
>> their beliefs.
> Interesting that you associate the right with violence and war, I
> suppose they  do sell.
>
> The new Green MP, Kennedy Graham is the brother of former high-ranking
> National MP Doug Graham.  Some light was showing through with Doug in
> Treaty of Waitangi issues.
>
>>  Then in NZ they were saddled with the strident, left of
>> centre Sue Bradford and her anti-smacking bill.
>>
> It was the media coined the term which you are perpetuating,
> 'anti-smacking bill.'
>
> Adults may also respond to being assaulted, should  it be legal for a
> person to smack them to control them?
>> Now, I don't think most people are keen on physically punishing their
>> kids
>> (except the strange so-called religious right...) but Sue Bradford's Bill
>> put the fear into us that we'd get arrested for smacking a kid on the bum
>> for willful disobedience - and really, when it does happen it is not
>> usually
>> hurtful. So, we have a "Green" bill that scares most self-respecting
>> parents, but no let-up in actual family violence.
>>
> Indeed the way the media said it must have put lots of people off voting
> green.
>
>> And then we had the concept of regulations to limit light bulbs
> That  would reduce the likelihood of blackouts.
>
>> and hot
>> shower pressure.
>
> Same, and it only applies to the design of cheap housing whose marketers
> do not bother with any energy efficiency in their equation.
>> Come on!!! As I argue, if we have to "ban" incandescent
>> light bulbs, then candles should be banned. They use up more energy - and
>> are more polluting! Or do you agree with this argument?
>>
>>
> I don't get your equation. Do you mean very few people are using the
> incandescents now?
>
>> The trouble with many Green enthusiasts is their lack of appreciation of
>> economics. I won't say "market forces" because they are a SYMPTOM of
>> economics. Imagine economics as something like the air we breathe - a mix
>> of
>> gases. The gases vary - but the air is still there. As with economics -
>> it
>> just won't go away.
> So why are we using the tax from the poor to prop up the financial
> market economic system of the rich at the moment?
>
>
>>  So, we have people reacting to price-rises in oil by
>> saying we should all ride bicycles or (heaven help us!) catch a bus. But
>> no,
>> you see, sacrificing YOUR space on the road only allows someone else to
>> take
>> that space up - and use the oil you saved.
>>
>>
> I think it more works like giving up smoking. There is a bigger message
> than the immediate price of the cigarettes.
>
>> Rationing does not work. But if you catch a bus to save YOURSELF
>> money....
>> then OK, do it. Someone else will take up your car space and use your
>> oil-saving, but you personally will be better off (higher income and
>> healthier). Now, that does NOT make you "Greener" - just a responsive
>> normal
>> person... like me...
>>
> Though being 'green' is a good team concept or label  for a lot of
> people.  For every six who voted National already about one voted Green.
> It would be interesting to do a study on IQ and who people vote for. In
> the whole population IQ distribution the  top one-sixth of people have
> an IQ of 116 or above. ??
>
>> "Endless growth" is a misnomer. I don't think we are seeking "endless
>> growth" - but what we are (as a country) seeking is an increasing
>> standard
>> of living. That is, we continue life much as it is at present, without
>> being
>> ravaged by rickets, TB, Herpes - whatever.... and that we continue to
>> have
>> reasonable cars (or buses or bicycles) that provide us with transport.
>>
>> However, the "endless growth" takes on its own life because with the
>> business of building cars and things the means of producing them - and
>> the
>> costs seem to go down. So, instead of driving a perfectly adequate Morris
>> Minor with occidental headlamps we end up driving a squashed-up looking
>> blob
>> with distinctly oriental lamp clusters and a multitude of airbags and
>> stuff
>> that can take us up to 100 KPH and back down to stationary again in the
>> time
>> it takes to pull out from an side road in the old Morrie. And at similar
>> or
>> lower (and cleaner) fuel consumption!
>>
> And I believe technology can be part of a growing economy which does not
> have to increase dependence on dwindling oil resserves. But to leave
> adjusting till the pain really sets in is too silly, and makes the
> actual ajustment much harder.
>
>> Personally, I think I'd prefer the Morrie.... but if we had stuck with
>> the
>> Morrie we would not have developed in-car electronics, and the basics
>> for -
>> ultimately - some sort of alternative fuel.
> I am sure we could have got to alternative fuel much faster.
>
>
>>  In fact, about all we would have
>> gained would be a lockable lid on the glovebox! (Later Morries had a
>> glovebox lid....)
>>
>> But, in the atmosphere of economics we get the high cost of primary
>> products
>> as demand for them increases - which means things get dear... so then a
>> few
>> people stop buying those things and suddenly the primary products drop in
>> price...
> And producers don't produce less but hock off their product cheaper.
>
>>  and once people get their jobs back they drive up the demand again.
>> Heck, it doesn't take much - which is why I argued our so-called fuel
>> crisis
>> was NOT a crisis of oil shortage - but one of supply.
>>
>>
> Oil produciton is greater than it has ever been In China and India the
> governments are subisidising its use. Do you believe in that?
>
> And the past history of planet earth is subsidising current use. Do you
> believe in that?
>
>> I seem to remember stating on this forum that the oil price is bound to
>> drop - not to the super low price of a couple of years ago - but it would
>> drop and inflation would increase so that any effects of the original
>> price
>> rise would be almost redundant. You see, there is not (yet) a shortage of
>> oil as a raw material. While we have it it cannot be "rationed' - only a
>> similar-priced alternative will ration oil - and when the real price of
>> oil
>> increases - reflected by a genuine increase in cost - then the price
>> actually rations it.
>>
>
> And it makes it harder to develop alternatives, then. The Green MP
> Jeanette Fitzsimons has been working to develop their use before it gets
> too hard.
>> That is, pretty much, what brought about the decline in whaling. Rock oil
>> beat the price of whale oil. Whaling did not cease because of Green
>> protests! It ceased because it was uneconomic - due to a shortage of
>> whales
>> and the cheapness of alternative products. (Which is not to say that the
>> Greens are not helping save the current whale population.)
>>
>>
>
> In that scenario there was still plenty of energy.
>
> And you haven't been thinking about climate change either.
>> But I seem to have digressed..... as the self-bonus-paying financiers
>> bundled up high risk mortgages into securities to on-lend to their
>> international banking mates and the financial market collapsed there came
>> about a sudden lack of business development cash. Unable to borrow or
>> service their working overdrafts companies started going a bit broke.
>> Guess
>> what? The first sign of this has been the drop in price of raw
>> materials -
>> primary products... and, sadly, a category of these so-called primary
>> products, is re-cycled raw materials. So, unless we regain a bit of
>> "honest"
>> growth in world economies we will end up with more waste.
> If we continue to run things on your market system without attention to
> green issues those troubles will continue.
>
>>  (There will be
>> less actual waste as people consume less, but more of it will be left to
>> go
>> to waste as it becomes uneconomic to recycle it.)
>>
>>
> Just leaving it to _your_ 'economic' theory will always do that. Green
> economic theory looks beyond the immediate market to future needs.
>
>> But how this relates to Canterbury and this forum is a moot point -
>> except
>> to state that Canterbury produces a wide range of fine primary products.
>> Dairying is leading the charge to convert - but hopefully, the high
>> prices
>> commanded by dairy products will attract other national players in the
>> market, ultimately driving down the high growth of new farms. In fact, it
>> is
>> likely many new conversions will fail because the banks may not be able
>> to
>> support the massive loans. Not that I am against dairying - just that it
>> is
>> inevitable that NZ milk payouts will decline in real terms in the future
>> as
>> other countries increase their output. And this means, hopefully when it
>> is
>> not too late, that our prime crop and seed producing farms will
>> remain....I
>> just hope the entire Plains aren't covered in vine yards instead!
>>
>> Ah well....
>>
>>
> So you are hoping that some other force than your market economics will
> jump in and save us?
>
>
>> Tim Kerr
>>
>>
>
> Brian
>
> Brian Sandle
>
> Info about Brian Sandle: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/briansandle
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4KdRwSCEPWEmGu93jnohgZ
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1824 - Release Date: 12/2/2008
9:31 AM

Add to the topic How will future Cantabrians deal with issues? [?]

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member Canterbury Public Issues Forum, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of Canterbury Public Issues Forum, and post to this topic.

Need help? Please contact technical support. To support your forum, please donate. Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.