IT salaries in India and USA contrasted

[SNGX1275]

Originally posted by Nic
I think you mean 'CAN and ARE wasteful', wouldn't you say? You are essentially implying that you see no need to change because things, as you see it, are no different to what they were in the past. That's a pretty poor argument and pity the world if there are more like you around. We might as well nuke ourselves now and spare everyone the agony of slow self-anialation.

There is lots of pressure on companies in the US to create less pollution whether it be air pollution or solid waste or liquid pollution. You seem to be arguing that the US isn't doing anything to reduce pollution and that simply isn't true, its just that we weren't going to put our name on a treaty to prove we are reducing pollution.

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by SNGX1275
There is lots of pressure on companies in the US to create less pollution whether it be air pollution or solid waste or liquid pollution. You seem to be arguing that the US isn't doing anything to reduce pollution and that simply isn't true, its just that we weren't going to put our name on a treaty to prove we are reducing pollution.

Point taken. I was really talking about the time up to the present. I know things are changing, so apologies if I gave the wrong impression.

I didn't actually start out with this argument, which really started on the subject of why some nations have gripes with America. We are talking about governments here, as we are all aware that what governments do and what public opinion is in favour of, are entirely separate issues.

There is a book on the subject, so something is definitely amiss somewhere. And as already mentioned many times before, no one actually dislikes american people, only government/business policies. Don't want you taking things the wrong way, after all the UK has been very supportive of some american policies thus far, but when you are in the firing line, then you're going to take some flak, stands to reason, doesn't it? Oh, and I haven't read the book.

Why Do People Hate America by Ziauddin Sardar, Merryl Wyn Davies

According to the authors:
1) Americans are uninformed about the real world
2) Americans are not in charge of their own foreign policy
3) What is done in the name of all Americans is severely detrimental to the rest of the world, and Americans will pay a heavy price if they allow this "hamburger/gunboat imperialism" to continue.

May God have mercy on our souls, for we know not what we do.

 

[Roderick]

Any statistics can be misleading if taken out of context, and that doesn't come from any statistics course.

And if said statistics are used to morally condemn a group of people, don't you think that's a little intellectually dishonest ? The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's environmental report is one such "statistics". By the IPCC's members own admission, the report can't account for disparate satellite data that contradicts the report. The panel are in disagreement over the effects of deforestations, farming, urban growth, and population migration over time, over the environment. In FACT, by any scientific rigors, the report is so much out of scientific tolerance for margins of errors, that only the ideologically based can support it. In other words, your moral condemnation of US over the environment is based upon highly dubious, interpretive, and speculative data at best or outright JUNK science at worst. This sort of JUNK science is beginning to garner the attention of scientifically minded journalists and true scientific professionals who are fed up with their crafts being misused by ideologues. One such challenge is a book by Bjorn Lomborg titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist". You can rightly guessed that he's not American by his name. He's an associate professor of STATISTICS at the U. of Aarhus. Environmental ideologues have been unable to destroy his interpretation of the data, the same ones used by the UN, so they've tried to destroy his reputation instead. Of last note, they're still trying to find out if he's in the secret pay of some American corporation.

No one said anything about 'geographic' size. It is 'population' size I was talking about. That's why I spent all that time pointing out the 'per capita' emission levels. You seem unable to follow a line of argument, and again go off on a tangent and lose the context. All other things being equal, then size (population) obviously matters. In the case of the US, you have both size and excess.

And I've never denied our excesses. But it isn't the size of the population that matters, it's what the population does. Your words : ...because of its sheer size... said nothing about which you meant. By your still exercise in illogic, even if we're an agragrian society, we would still be the world's greatest polluters.

I already made clear that I have no interest in politics and therefore don't always follow your thread of conversation.

Therein lies the weaknesses of your arguments. Politics, national and international, ties in with economics and dictates our responses given the level of disparity of economic affluence in the world.

It costs money to improve production processes and produce more energy efficient goods. That is something that the consumer is not interested in, and is something America seems unwilling to change (though things are improving as more foreign goods enter the country).

It cost extra money in the INITIAL start up of a more efficient process. In the long term, inefficient processes will be eliminated as companies evolved and continued to try to improve the cost/profit ratios. This is happening ALL THE TIME and mostly behind the scenes.

This seems to be something you agree with, and you are essentially putting forward the case that you see no reason to change, as you are quite happy with all your comforts and economic wealth. That is one reason why America is so disliked by other nations, that are willing to change and take a stance in support of the environment. If one of the largest and most affluent nations in the world refuses to reduce its excesses, then what hope is there for the rest of us?

Once again the rhetorics backed up with nothing. The EU subsidies to its farmers are costing developing nations AROUND THE WORLD anywhere from 30blns to 100blns PER YEAR. In defending its agricultural subsidies, specifically $2 a day for EACH cattle in Brussels, EU agricultural minister Fritz Fischler said :...but unfortunately this argument is not only intellectually dishonest, it is factually irrelevant. Yes, in the developed world we are spending our money on many things. Not because we are all stupid, but because our standard of living is higher...What next ? Criticizing governments for spending public money on hospital beds, costly noise protection walls or fancy trees in parks rather than sending it all to Africa ? Societies around the world must have the right to choose which public goods and services are important to them.

In other words, when it comes to EUers' comfort, Africa's and the rest of the world's criticism is "intellectually dishonest and factually irrelevant", but when it comes to US, no amount is enough. What hope is there for you EUers when your own leaders has the EXACT same attitude to your own comfort as ours do to us ? If you claim that our leadership is a reflection of Americans, then what does Fischler's attitude said about EUers ? If you agree with Fischler's comment that governments should look after its people interests, then why are you condemning US for doing the same ?

Referring back to the flawed IPCC's data on environmental doom-n-gloom caused by Americans. Using the same scientific methodologies, but with stricter data controls, outside scientists predicted that, under the Kyoto Treaty's demands, the world's climate temperature would decrease by .14% of ONE CENTIGRADE OVER 100 yrs !!! To plateau the current level, ALL developed nations MUST reduce their petroleum consumption by 70 to 80%, and developing nations MUST stay in their current stage of development, most likely many will regress back to the Stone Age. How many of your leaders will acquiesced to this demand ? Your inability/refusal to tie in politics with economics undermine your arguments which is already based upon flawed science.

Maybe you would like to list exactly what you see as the cause of America's high 'per capita' emissions levels.

Easy, we're a consumeristic society more than others. But the high per capita statistics is meaningless if there's no correllation to the current vogue accusation that it's the cause of global climate increase. Alleged correlations that are as anecdotal as cyclic solar flares are the real cause of temperature increase as proposed by...SURPRISE...members of the IPCC themselves !!! They can't deny the discrepancies between hard data collected by them and outside scientists, but they fear the wrath of environmental ideologues more. In that perspective, I can rightly argue that lefthanders are to blame as well. If you can do a Boolean search for Aaron Feuerstein, you can do one for "solar flares cause global temp change" as well.

The world is changing, and what happened 50 years ago should not affect decisions made today, otherwise how can there be progress?

Read George Santayana, especially about the "...doom to repeat it." bit.

You are often off topic and misleading, because you avoid the real issue, and choose instead to pick on small irrelevent details which you embelish with terminology and history, in an attempt to disguise you own ineptness at putting forth valid arguments.

Doh !!! As it ever was, the Devil is in the details. Just because you're unable/refuse to reconcile the fact that politics and economics goes hand in hand, doesn't mean my attention to the details of such is misleading or off topic. So far you haven't answered my question if you think it's fair for me to use Samoa or Fiji to indict the UK. I didn't ask if you produce more pollutants than them or not. I asked if you think it's fair in the same principle that a less productive nation can accuse the more productive ones.

You guys will never solve all of the worlds problems. You can argue about it for ever (if you think that that's fun, fair enough) but you will never iron out the source of these problems truly.

With all due respect, I respectfully disagree. Of course it has been fun for me. But on a more serious note, without these debates between opposing sides, no issues will ever be resolved. The mistake is in believing that since we're far away from the seats of power, whatever knowledge we possess is irrelevant. That attitude is a sure path to disasters.

 

[BrownPaper]

talking about politics does not get anywhere. people are already set in their attitudes about certain issues. i do not think they want to anyway. it is just a neverending struggle.

i suppose you could guess i am not going to run in the california governor recall election. go gary coleman! (just kidding)

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by Roderick
And if said statistics are used to morally condemn a group of people, don't you think that's a little intellectually dishonest ?

Basically your argument is that you do not believe that a problem, and it's cause, has been identified to your satisfaction. Regardless of the relative contribution of various nations to the pollution of our environment, you feel that there is no need to act on issues whose cause is a subject of debate, and disagreement, amongst the scientific community. In the absence of agreement then your attitude is 'lets do nothing'. You prefer a 'reactive' approach rather than a 'proactive' approach. When the problem hits us square on, then we'll think about doing something. We don't want to damage our economy now do we? Well if you were running a business using that philosophy, then you'd aleady be out of business.

You said yourself, statistics don't lie, and as far as I can see 'per capita' statistics are as fair way as any to measure things, unlike the 'land mass' method previously used to argue the case. That method of analysing statistics was 'intellectually dishonest', but 'per capita' statistics are not. As far as I can tell, your reason for calling these figures 'intellectually dishonest' is based only on your denial that any problem exists, and that its cause has been identified. It seems to me that this reasoning is in itself 'intellectually dishonest'. The moon is not made of 'cheese', and I don't need scientific agreement, data, nor statistics to tell me that.

Originally posted by Roderick
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's environmental report is one such "statistics". By the IPCC's members own admission, the report can't account for disparate satellite data that contradicts the report. The panel are in disagreement over the effects of deforestations, farming, urban growth, and population migration over time, over the environment. In FACT, by any scientific rigors, the report is so much out of scientific tolerance for margins of errors, that only the ideologically based can support it. In other words, your moral condemnation of US over the environment is based upon highly dubious, interpretive, and speculative data at best or outright JUNK science at worst.

Incorrect. It is based on 'per capita' emissions, which are factual and in agreement. Your argument is based on disagreement on the real cause of global warming, not on emission levels. Just because there is lack of agreement on issues, doesn't mean that you should ignore them and not do anything. That is a sure path to destruction. And it isn't all just about global warming. In fact, a little more heat in the UK would be welcome. The worlds resources are finite, and being wasteful means that we will shorten the time to expiry. Then what will we do? Seems to me the only reason you use this 'disagreement' as an argument, is simply because the US is the nation that is impacted the most by the call to reduce emissions.

Originally posted by Roderick
And I've never denied our excesses. But it isn't the size of the population that matters, it's what the population does.

size (population) * high 'per capita' excesses = high resource abuse.

Originally posted by Roderick
Therein lies the weaknesses of your arguments. Politics, national and international, ties in with economics and dictates our responses given the level of disparity of economic affluence in the world.

It doesn't take a politician/economist to recognise an issue and then deal with it. As far as I can see, being too involved in politics/economy impairs any ability to reason and deal effectively with a problem (can't see forest for the trees). In fact, the tendancy is to sit back and do nothing, waiting until suitable/acceptable agreement is reached by all. This is unlikely ever to happen, though a majority opinion has already been reached, and the US disagrees.

Originally posted by Roderick
It cost extra money in the INITIAL start up of a more efficient process. In the long term, inefficient processes will be eliminated as companies evolved and continued to try to improve the cost/profit ratios. This is happening ALL THE TIME and mostly behind the scenes.

Yes, processes can be made cheaper through application of better technologies, but it will still cost more to clean up than to waste and not clean up. There is effort involved and that costs more than cheap resources (currently).

Originally posted by Roderick
Once again the rhetorics backed up with nothing. The EU subsidies to its farmers are costing developing nations AROUND THE WORLD anywhere from 30blns to 100blns PER YEAR. In defending its agricultural subsidies, specifically $2 a day for EACH cattle in Brussels, EU agricultural minister Fritz Fischler said :...but unfortunately this argument is not only intellectually dishonest, it is factually irrelevant. Yes, in the developed world we are spending our money on many things. Not because we are all stupid, but because our standard of living is higher...What next ? Criticizing governments for spending public money on hospital beds, costly noise protection walls or fancy trees in parks rather than sending it all to Africa ? Societies around the world must have the right to choose which public goods and services are important to them.

This issue is 'factually irrelevent' as already stated by Fischler. Rabbits have the right to breed and populate the world (much like happened in Australia), but if you let that happen then sooner or later it will get out of control and they will anialate themselves, and other species, due to all food supplies being used up. We don't have a right to to as we please. We are intelligent beings that have gained sufficient understanding such that we can now control our own destiny, and that of other creatures. As such, we need to control our desires, manage our environment, and use its finite resources, in a sustainable and intelligent manner. That means placing limits on how much each of us impacts our environment. It wouldn't be fair to let Americans have the largest portion of the cake whilst others make do with less.

Originally posted by Roderick
In other words, when it comes to EUers' comfort, Africa's and the rest of the world's criticism is "intellectually dishonest and factually irrelevant", but when it comes to US, no amount is enough. What hope is there for you EUers when your own leaders has the EXACT same attitude to your own comfort as ours do to us ?

Sorry for pointing this out, but we don't have the EXACT same attitude as the US. We only have the same desires. The EU is playing its part in reducing environmental impact. Almost all 'white goods' sold in EU (fridges, washing machines, TVs etc.) are given energy efficiency ratings and are to have tax added to cover environmentaly friendly disposal/recycling at end of life. Most towns and cities have special skips for collection of waste that can be recycled (paper, plastics, glass, etc.). There are subsidies for insulating older properties (newer ones already have to meet energy efficiency guidelines) and the cost of energy saving light bulbs are often subsidised by electricity providers. Most cars have an engine capacity of around 1.1 litres, and 1.6 litres would be considered large. In fact most EU nations have, and are, reducing our impact on energy resources and the environment. Maybe that is why our emssion levels are less than half that of wasteful nations, such as the US, where the cost of energy is very much lower than in europe, and so the desire to become more efficient is less of an issue. It is not us europeans who are 'intellectually dishonest', but the US.

Originally posted by Roderick
Easy, we're a consumeristic society more than others. But the high per capita statistics is meaningless if there's no correllation to the current vogue accusation that it's the cause of global climate increase. Alleged correlations that are as anecdotal as cyclic solar flares are the real cause of temperature increase as proposed by...SURPRISE...members of the IPCC themselves !!!

As mentioned already, global climate change is only one issue, and as you already said, there is disagreement over the cause. That in itself does not mean that there is any disagreement that pollution is a contributer to global warming. In the absence of agreement, you say we should do nothing. I say we should do what we can.

Originally posted by Roderick
So far you haven't answered my question if you think it's fair for me to use Samoa or Fiji to indict the UK. I didn't ask if you produce more pollutants than them or not. I asked if you think it's fair in the same principle that a less productive nation can accuse the more productive ones.

Yes, its fair. But since we don't all want to revert back to the stone age (as you said), then we need to do all we can, and reduce waste and energy use as much as we can. It is not reasonable for one nation to waste more than another due to its own excesses. We need to have fair limits for everyone.

Originally posted by Roderick
With all due respect, I respectfully disagree. Of course it has been fun for me. But on a more serious note, without these debates between opposing sides, no issues will ever be resolved. The mistake is in believing that since we're far away from the seats of power, whatever knowledge we possess is irrelevant. That attitude is a sure path to disasters.

Disaster is already certain, and the US is showing us the way.

 

[SNGX1275]

Originally posted by Nic
Sorry for pointing this out, but we don't have the EXACT same attitude as the US. We only have the same desires. The EU is playing its part in reducing environmental impact. Almost all 'white goods' sold in EU (fridges, washing machines, TVs etc.) are given energy efficiency ratings and are to have tax added to cover environmentaly friendly disposal/recycling at end of life. Most towns and cities have special skips for collection of waste that can be recycled (paper, plastics, glass, etc.).

I just had to clip this out because. While not all household appliances in the US have Energy Star sticker on them many do and nearly all (I won't say all cause I'm not 100% sure) Monitors sold have the Energy Star sticker. Here's what Energy Star is incase some people outside the US dont' know.

From sears.com
Energy Star Compliance
The Energy Star label, a symbol for energy efficiency, was created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to help customers identify products that can save them money and protect the environment by saving energy. Energy Star Compliant products generally consume less energy than similar standard products.

And all appliances have their efficiencies on them when you buy, and have a little line graph to show how it rates with similar products.
Most towns and cities here also have recycling centers for aluminum, plastic, glass, and paper as well. In fact many cities require you to seperate those items from your regular trash and set them in specific recycling bins when you set your trash out for collection.

 

[Nic]

Looks like things really are changing then. But, to be specific, does that energy star rating feature on american manufactured/brand goods, or just imported goods?

I guess the consumer has a lot of power to change things at the end of the day. We can all vote with our wallets and do the right thing. There is hope after all.

 

[SNGX1275]

Yes, American Brands/Manufacturers are participating in this. I tried to find a comprehensive listing but could not, but I didn't search real long. (Actually just took the first google link then went to see the january 2003 update, and noticed several American brands. If you want you can skim over what its all about and other info at http://www.energystar.gov/ Apparently they encompass much more than even I thought they did.
For residential:
Appliances
Ceiling Fans
Home Electronics
Dehumidifiers
Heating & Cooling
Ventilating Fans
Home Office
Lighting
Windows
Water Coolers
Home Improvement

For Commercial:
Exit Signs
Refrigerators & Freezers
Office Equipment
Monitor Power Management
Roof Products
Traffic Signals
Transformers
Water Coolers

Also from their website: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=news.nr_facts

Millions of Americans are already embracing change. More than 630 million products with the ENERGY STAR have been purchased to date and thousands of companies are working with EPA to adopt more energy efficient practices. Last year alone, ENERGY STAR helped save enough energy to power ten million homes and reduce air pollution equivalent to taking ten million cars off the road -- all this for the environment while also saving Americans $5 billion on their energy bills and without sacrificing product features, quality or personal comfort.

So as you can see this is a government program to help reduce pollution levels, and there have been marked improvements. Can more improvements be made? Sure. But this is just one of the many steps that are being implemented in the US. Hardly sitting idle like what it appears the other parts of the world think.

 

[StormBringer]

The Energy Star rating means that the product meets or exceeds certain criteria to make it energy efficient. Most major appliances also have another label in the US, one that shows their actuall efficiency ratings. This label has a scale that shows the least and most efficient ratings for similar models of the same product type. This is called the EnergyGuide label and has been required on things like washers, dryers, stoves, etc... for many years. This label has two purposes, one, it is required to be there to show how much energy the item uses, and two, it lets you, the consumer, directly compare efficiencies of different brands of the same product.

 

[Nic]

Not much point in Roderick fanning the flames again. This ones already tuckered out. Maybe someone else would care to take up the one on US foreign policy:=).

 

[olefarte]

And I can add that as someone who has worked in the grain industry all his life, the US has some very stringent rules on air pollutrion. The EPA makes constant inspections on all grain plants and checks mainly for dust emissions. If you are over the limit, the plant is given the opportunity to fix the problem. If it's not fixed within a certain time frame, fines will get larger, until it is fixed, ultimatly, the plant might be forced to shut down.

I worked for a company, that was forced to shut down one of there plants, with the loss of about 200 jobs, because they could not afford to fix the problem. It can be quite expensive.

 

[Nic]

It would appear that in the 5 years since those emissions figures were published, a lot has changed. I'd be very surprised if current emission levels had not improved from those of 1998. I guess all the pressure from environmentalists and other nations has helped bring about change at the end of the day. You can't ask for any more than that. The next step would be for more use of public transport and less reliance on the car. That is something that is still an issue even in the UK. We have traffic at a standstill and most cars having only one person on board for a trip that they could easily make using public transport systems. There is an attempt to provide free bus transport from outer edges of major cities, into the centre. People can leave their vehicles in car parks on city boundaries and travel in by bus. Charging for entering cities is also being looked at. The problem is that some people like their comforts so much that most still refuse to leave their cars at home. Eventually it will be the norm, but change is never easy.

 

[Roderick]

Basically your argument is that you do not believe that a problem, and it's cause, has been identified to your satisfaction. Regardless of the relative contribution of various nations to the pollution of our environment, you feel that there is no need to act on issues whose cause is a subject of debate, and disagreement, amongst the scientific community. In the absence of agreement then your attitude is 'lets do nothing'. You prefer a 'reactive' approach rather than a 'proactive' approach. When the problem hits us square on, then we'll think about doing something. We don't want to damage our economy now do we? Well if you were running a business using that philosophy, then you'd aleady be out of business.

What do you mean to my satisfaction ? "My" as in me personally ? Or "my" as in the context as I'm an American ? Or "my" as in someone who has some knowledge in science and engineering ? Or "my" as in someone who's scientifically literate ? Or all of the above ? It's not just me personally who's seen some of the discrepancies. It's the dissatisfactions of the scientists themselves who've been hired by the UN to review its own data.

You said yourself, statistics don't lie, and as far as I can see 'per capita' statistics are as fair way as any to measure things, unlike the 'land mass' method previously used to argue the case. That method of analysing statistics was 'intellectually dishonest', but 'per capita' statistics are not. As far as I can tell, your reason for calling these figures 'intellectually dishonest' is based only on your denial that any problem exists, and that its cause has been identified. It seems to me that this reasoning is in itself 'intellectually dishonest'. The moon is not made of 'cheese', and I don't need scientific agreement, data, nor statistics to tell me that.

Statistics don't lie, but its interpretations can. The per capita statistics of anything about anything else is has honest as the methods have evolved. It's pretty hard to forge these. I've never denied the truthfulness of these numbers. But that isn't the issue from the beginning. It's the attribution of these per capita numbers (materiel excess) to an event (global warming), made even more onerous when said attribution's scientific methodologies have been proven by peer reviews to be at best dubious. I've never denied the problem (global warming) exists, but when it's a better than 50/50 chance that it's cause by solar flares and not by my vehicle's exhaust, it's hard that I specifically or Americans in general should feel/be guilty for our excesses. As far as your moon/cheese analogy goes, if you've been living a few hundred yrs ago, you would've little choice but to believe anything the Church tells you, only recently has Galileo been exonerate by the Church. Right now you're subscribing to the orthodoxy of the Church of Radical Environmentalism, whose doctrines are not to be disputed.

Incorrect. It is based on 'per capita' emissions, which are factual and in agreement. Your argument is based on disagreement on the real cause of global warming, not on emission levels. Just because there is lack of agreement on issues, doesn't mean that you should ignore them and not do anything. That is a sure path to destruction. And it isn't all just about global warming. In fact, a little more heat in the UK would be welcome. The worlds resources are finite, and being wasteful means that we will shorten the time to expiry. Then what will we do? Seems to me the only reason you use this 'disagreement' as an argument, is simply because the US is the nation that is impacted the most by the call to reduce emissions.

Read the report and the anti-report again. A summary by Timo Hamerata of the IPCC TAR (Third Annual Rev) :

2. Global Warming

* various instruments are used to measure Global Warming
* three of the four main instruments show no significant global warming over the last 50 years
* only certain thermometer stations show slight warming, mainly due to the so-called urban heat island effect, which is due to natural growth of population, urbanisation, industrialisation and transportation
* the IPCC admits the discrepancy between satellite and ground station records, but it relies on ground stations, scattered incidentally here and there, not on the most modern and most accurate instruments, the satellites. This is, at least, curious
* the oceans cover 70 % of the Earth's surface, and information on temperatures of the surface layer is poor and unreliable
* we humans live on ground, but globally we live in a "water world". For global climate the water and water vapour circulation is far more important than the carbon circulation in which the IPCC is concentrated.
* but the most effective factor is the Sun, quite neglected by the IPCC
* contrary to Global Warming, some scientists argue that there are a growing number of signs that we may be already heading towards a new Ice Age
* the generations to come would be grateful to us, if our emissions could at least postpone the coming Ice Age, but they do not.
* we Finns know well the Ice Age because 20.000 years ago Finland was covered by ice one kilometre high, 10.000 years ago Finland was still covered by ice, and in 5.000 - 10.000 years Finland will again be covered by ice, and will be covered by ice the following 100.000 years.

3. Human-induced GHGs, especially CO2

* human-made GHG emissions are measured with precision
* from 1958 to 2000 the CO2 concentration has grown about 18 %
* the impacts of human GHGs on climate warming are too small to be measured
* human influence on global climate is indiscernible
* climate is not so sensitive to human GHGs as earlier supposed

As I've replied in the past, your per capita statistics, while truthful and I've acknowledged as such, is SCIENTIFICALLY MEANINGLESS unless it can even be inferred, and I'm being generous here. The "they" in the 2nd bolded statement in sect. 2 refers to emissions, not the "generations to come". In other words, Finnish scientists are saying that they're finished, no matter what. If I comtemptously said that there are more lefthanded Rolls Royce drivers in the UK than there are all lefthanders living in Luxembourg, people would shrug their shoulders and asked : "So what ? Is is bad ? Why is it bad ? And bad for what/whom ?" You seemed to imply that since there's a lack of consensus on the cause, we should be doing something anyway, being "proactive". Paul Erhlich wrote "The Population Bomb" 1968 stating: Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and promote effective action worldwide. We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail. We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control.And...We can no longer afford merely to treat the symptoms of the cancer of population growth; the cancer itself must be cut out. Population control is the only answer. Erhlich predicted worldwide famine in the coming 70s as agricultural technology has reach its zenith and no more could be produced to feed the world. You 2 sounds quite alike.

What would happened if we had been "proactive" on the "cancer" as Erhlich advocated ? Would any of us even exist now to have this debate ? Physics tells us that energy can't be destroyed, merely recycled into other forms. You've not even anedotal evidence that dino-oil is nearing exhaustion, just as Erhlich was wrong in his underestimation of agricultural means.

size (population) * high 'per capita' excesses = high resource abuse.

So what ? If it can't be attributed to global warming, what is it to you that we've more fat assed Americans driving gas guzzling SUVs ? They'll just die an early cholesterol laden death.

As far as I can see, being too involved in politics/economy impairs any ability to reason and deal effectively with a problem (can't see forest for the trees). In fact, the tendancy is to sit back and do nothing, waiting until suitable/acceptable agreement is reached by all.

It's called the democratic process - a suitable/acceptable agreement for all parties involved. Unlike the alternative where Big Brother make the decisions for you under the guise of an all knowing entity and that you're too stupid and too small of the "big picture" to participate.

This issue is 'factually irrelevent' as already stated by Fischler.

Fischler was defending farm subsidies, but his sentiments reflects the overall attitude regarding the comforts and decadence of EUers. Exact same accusation you've been making against US about US caring for our own comforts. Those 30-100blns per year in tariffs against others could've enabled them to grow in a more energy efficient manner, instead they're used to pay $2 per day per cattlehead in Brussels. Ever consider that ?

In fact most EU nations have, and are, reducing our impact on energy resources and the environment. Maybe that is why our emssion levels are less than half that of wasteful nations, such as the US, where the cost of energy is very much lower than in europe, and so the desire to become more efficient is less of an issue. It is not us europeans who are 'intellectually dishonest', but the US.

If you chose ala Erhlich to impose upon yourselves restrictions in every aspect of your lives based upon dubious science, you're free to do so. But don't condemn US for demanding more proof when your own scientists dispute your own findings. I don't think that's an unreasonable demand.

 

[Nic]

Interesting post. I hope you didn't stay up all night writing it :=).

As, I already said, I done with this argument so I'm just going to leave it at that. If you've been reading this thread, then you'll already be aware that the environmentalists have already one, so now everyone is happy. Its been fun, and I have enjoyed reading your posts. Oh, and as for dino-oil running out, well we all know that supplies are finite, and it took millions of years to produce what little we have. At some point, probably during our lifetime, they will become exhausted. So why speed that process up? Without oil our ecomomies will likely collapse, as we use it for just about everything these days. [Oops, I think I may just have started another argument. ]

PS: I'm all for population control. Paul Erhlich seems like a pretty switched-on guy. If you dig out your history books (science this time), youu'll no doubt find that some of the greatest minds in history, had trouble convincing others of their ideas. It seems that those that can make breakthroughs, and produce ideas that others cannot grasp, will always find rejection from the masses. This is normal human behaviour. We all tend to stick with what we know and can understand. Genius is not common.

 

[Roderick]

Didn't take too long to think it, only too long to type it. I grew up on typewriters where a lot more force is required so I'm fatfingering in a lot of errors. Your posts on this subject consists mostly of empty rhetorics and few hard facts, whereas everything I've said can be easily Googled and verified. Over 1k reads and the Admin haven't close it yet indicated what I've saying has merits and not as off topic as you've implied.

If "interesting post" is the best you can come up with against hard evidences, radical environmentalism will be joining the dinosaurs. Radical environmentalists may have won a few skirmishes, but hardly the war or even the battle. The fact that the US has rejected the formalization of the Kyoto Treaty indicated that more scientifically minded heads have prevailed, not political ones. Lomborg and the likes are beginning to wake up people with rational thinkings instead of hysteria. Given the militancy of ELF and companies, I wouldn't be surprised if Lomborg is killed, he has received death threats as reported by the London Telegraph. Once again, easily Googled and verified: For daring to utter such eco-heresies, Lomborg has received threats from enraged environmentalists and now opens mail with extreme care for fear of what parcels might contain.

Pathetic, if you can't convince with words and ideas, kill them. Your PS is something what I've suspected all along. Another "progressive" EUer who believes he knows what's better for me than me for myself, a member of ignorant "masses" who rejected "progressive" ideas such as forceable sterilizations advocated by Erhlich.

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by Roderick
Over 1k reads and the Admin haven't close it yet indicated what I've saying has merits and not as off topic as you've implied.

What makes you think it is your posts that anyone finds interesting? Once again, you are jumping to conclusions and making illogical and unsubstantive claims. I think the tide of new environmentalist thinking, already proves you wrong, and in the minority.

Originally posted by Roderick
If "interesting post" is the best you can come up with against hard evidences, radical environmentalism will be joining the dinosaurs. Radical environmentalists may have won a few skirmishes, but hardly the war or even the battle.

Who said anything about being 'radical'. We are talking about sensible environmentalism here. That is what has prevailed.

Originally posted by Roderick
Your PS is something what I've suspected all along. Another "progressive" EUer who believes he knows what's better for me than me for myself, a member of ignorant "masses" who rejected "progressive" ideas such as forceable sterilizations advocated by Erhlich.

I don't know what 'PS' means. Rabbits also know what is better for them than do others, or so they think. Their sole desire is to breed, and breed some more. Same with Rats. It takes a few sensible, and intelligent people to keep them from destroying themselves and taking everyone else along with them. And I already said, that Erhlich has some good ideas. You must have missed that bit.

Finally, your use of the word me, as opposed to us seems to reveal that you are really only concerned about your own welfare, and not that of others. That has capitalist written all over it, and is the aspect of capitalism that is disliked the most. Your game is up.

Roderick, if you can spare the time, can you please take the 'Career Makeover' Test and post your results here. Thanks. Just for curiosity :=).

Career Makeover Test

 

[Nic]

Checkmate, I think :=).

 

[Phantasm66]

i wish you pair would shut up. I started out reading this thread with some interest, but now I wish it would go away.

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by Phantasm66
i wish you pair would shut up. I started out reading this thread with some interest, but now I wish it would go away.

Me too. I think the bickering has stopped now. This thread started off on the issue of outsourcing, so goodness knows how we ended up talking about usa, capitalism, pollution, population, etc. Besides, I think you're being a little picky, as there are some good points and information posted by all in this thread. Over 1k page hits for a thread that hasn't been running that long is pretty good, wouldn't you say?

If you have anything to add on outsourcing then that would help.

Roderick: Let's just call it quits and stop here. We both made some good points, and I don't really feel like continuing that topic anymore.

 

[SNGX1275]

Originally posted by Nic
This thread started off on the issue of outsourcing, so goodness knows how we ended up talking about usa, capitalism, pollution, population, etc. Besides, I think you're being a little picky, as there are some good points and information posted by all in this thread. Over 1k page hits for a thread that hasn't been running that long is pretty good, wouldn't you say?

The reason we ended up talking about the US and other things may have something to do with the title of the thread "IT salaries in India and USA contrasted". Ended up on capatilism because of something on how IT jobs are being taken away to India. Not just the US as the title implies, when you attack the US US citizens (at least some) are going to defend those attacks.

I think it was a little uncalled for saying "checkmate" too, you didn't win, Roderick didn't win, I with my very few replies didn't win, no one won, no one ever really wins in an online argument.

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by SNGX1275
I think it was a little uncalled for saying "checkmate" too, you didn't win, Roderick didn't win, I with my very few replies didn't win, no one won, no one ever really wins in an online argument.

I already made a point about that. It was a debate that ended up impersonating an argument. Debates don't have winners or losers, they only bring individual points of view to the table.

 

[Nic]

US IT jobs under fire - The Register

IT employment in the US is coming under increasing pressure due to greater offshore outsourcing of contracts and the continued practice of hiring IT staff from overseas.

The concerns for the future of IT jobs in the US were raised by the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (CPST), which found that unemployment in the sector has risen to an average of six per cent in the first half of the year.

The CPST accepts that part of the problem lies in the health of the US economy, which has seen IT unemployment rise steadily over the last three years. However, it's warned that other forces are also to blame which could put further pressure on IT jobs.

It claims that in the past decade, the share of foreign-born IT workers has doubled, while the outsourcing of IT work overseas has quadrupled to more than $1.2 billion in 2001.

But pressure on jobs is not only being squeezed from the outside.

The number of IT graduates taking computer science has jumped 40 per cent over recent years adding to an increase in supply, it said.

 

[Charles Hammond]

If America is not a superpower who will save Europe when the next war brakes out. What if Kosavo had enveloped all of Europe in a giant war? Who on the European Continent is prepared to save Europe from the next big conflict???

America has all kinds of problems, we should just pull all of our troops out of europe and move to Hydrogen fuel source. That way we can tell both the middle east and Europe to find someone else to solve their problems. If I was in charge of the US, I would have just pulled everything we have out of Saudia Arabia long ago and froze all of their assets. It was the Saudi people who destroyed the City of New York with their funding of terrorism.

 

[consie89]

Problems in Europe? i doubt very much that there will be a war in Europe for an awful long while, since most of it is capitalist and all locked togeather by the EU and alliances, the east is the problem now, Europe has been sorted and now its the east. Also what annoys me is. The Americans came into europe fullscale in thelast year, of WW2, claiming to have save the Brits arses. The Brits held in there since 39, and by 44 Germany was on its last legs anyway, you just finished them of and claimed all the credit.

 

[Phantasm66]

....We're not STILL on this, are we?

Like some undead zombie that refuses to die, even when you've pumped it full of lead from an oozie 9mm, this thread just keeps coming and coming and coming and coming and coming....!