Post your thoughts/ideas/musings on global poverty and climate change for Policywonk - Mumsnet's blogger at the G20 summit...

PW, don't you remember my conspiracy theory from ages ago??? It had a spaceship in it!

Doh! lol

No no no. The worst except for all the others. It's a famous Churchill quote, you ponce

Look, if you view the world's resources as finite (and I think you have to really, given the second law of thermodynamics), then it's absolutely logical to say that in order for people in absolute poverty to have more, obscenely over-indulged people in the West are going to have to make do with a little less. It's either that or pitilessly mine the Earth until every single resource is utterly extinguished, and then hope for a seat on the last spaceship out of here.

The worst? Than what?

Liberal democracy might eventually help poverty. Its certainly not a good idea for us to forsake our provledges (and hence our responsiblites) becasue other people suffer in the world. What kind of self hatred is that?

I do think liberal democracy is the worst government system, except for all the others (ta, Winston). I absolutely believe that there's never been a better time or place to be a woman that in developed nations in 2009 (despite the fact that we still have a long way to go to achieve true parity).

But nevertheless, something like one-third of the world's population lives in absolute poverty. Liberal democracy isn't doing much to change that.

What advanced capitalism (of the almost untrammelled sort practised in the UK and the US) and liberal democracy seem to do, in tandem, is to concentrate wealth (which is pretty much analagous to power) in ever-smaller groups of people. It also encourages levels of consumption that most people think are unsustainable.

And we have a huge moral problem, as MLE points out, in that we're enjoying all the benefits, and other people in the world are bearing most of the cost.

Do you really think a made up marketing ploy like pentapeptides is a threat to anyone?

Take your pick? Only if you are determined to see the worst on everything. I am on the side of people and politics any day. Never ideologies or 'anarchists'.

Great that you value living in democracy. Look at the small print in the Socialist Worker however. They are after revolutiuon not efficiancy or humanitarian reorganisation. Back to breaking eggs to make omelettes..

By junk I mean things like 100 different types of washing powder...frozen mashed potato...'pentapeptides' for your hair/skin or whatever....hard to know what to pick really.
If you look at increase in life span over last 50 years rather than last 100, you see a different story. Yes, life span improved by improved sanitation, improved diet and vaccination. Once those improvements are in place (and these are the improvements that everyone is entitled to, IMO) there isn't much more gained by the increased affluence, for the majority of the population. Rather we start to kill ourselves by over eating, smoking, drinking too much and not taking enough exercise.
So, to get back to the G20, while I do value living in a democracy, I don't think capitalism is either necessary for democracy or an efficient way of acheiving well being for all. It's just chance that I'm born here, why shouldn't everyone have clean water, enough food, education, a midwife etc?

What do you mean by 'junk'?

And not more health? Do you know how mush more the average life span is today than it was even 100 years ago?

There are always costs. Life is not cost free. I would rather juggle with the costs and balances of liberal democracy - which, as it happens, is not a static entity and so is not an 'ideology' - than having those costs dictaed to me for the good of..what..Oceania? No thanks.

mmm but what is meant by 'standard of living'?
increased affluence has simply lead to more junk, not more happiness or health. And that affluence is bought at a huge price, which we're not paying.

but by god we enjoy a better standard of living than has ever been achieved in history without the tyranny, I should have added

Doh! Has my spelling given me away!

Opps I mean, no, I am GLaDOS; Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System

Another point though that might be relevent - there is little point fighting global warming if people aren't prepared to fight for their way of life per se, meaning fighting for the presevation of liberal democracy.

The thing is, these other systems have been tried and have all lead to untold corruption, tyranny and mass slaughter. Liberal democracy is not perfect by any means, but by god we enjoy a better standard of living than has ever been achieved in history.

Maybe we have been so lucky that we forget what politics is for - that we have mortal enemies in the world who don't care if we sympathise with their aims. They want us gone basically.

I don't want to do deals with despots. I want my son to grow up in liberal democracy, in reletive stablity compared to the rest of the world. I don;t want him to be oppressed by anyone, especially anti-capitalists!

I like the questions for the anti capitalists...I'd be interested to know how exactly capitalism can be dismantled (or whatever verb they use)...as in, it's clear (to me) that current system is hugely damaging and I can envisage, just about, some more localised, sustainable, just economy...but how to get from here to there?
I mean, what are the steps???

is that you, MT?

Good point, Bramshott.

Hmm. Actually this is one of the main issues - over stating the nagative effects. Climate change will also save many lifes from cold deaths. It's in all the Lomborg stuff.

And it's very a different thing to introduce measures, like the welfare state, and analysie pros and cons, and what is working and not working, than indtocucing 'revolutionary' chganges that are from the off, guarenteed to bring huge loses. That's why marxism, communism, etc always brought totalitariansm whereever they were implicated. Ideologies should never go before people.

One thing I was mulling over last night was the question of why / how it is that now that the war in Afghanistan is going badly, suddenly all the talk is of 'dialogue' with the Taliban, despite their appalling record on womens rights and the closing down of girls schools etc. I mean, either they are an evil regime deserving of regime change, or they're not, surely, they can't be one thing in 2001, and a totally different one today (given that their beliefs and ethos have not changed at all).

Policy - that's not a question for you to 'answer' (!), more a general musing for the thread!

Yes, I think some of them do think like that. OTOH, you could say that people are dying all over the world at the moment because of the way the current system 'works' (or doesn't work)... and runaway climate change, if it's allowed to continue, will kill millions more.

Anyway I'm interested to see what they'll say, if they respond at all.

Oh, that last one sounds like the 'you have to break eggs to make an omelette' argument. Which basically translates to 'people will have to die if our cause is to succeed' - the tyrants charter!

I think I might have bludgeoned the thread into submission by my schoolmarmishness

Thanks for those links MT, I will have a read.

I think I might try to get some of the anti-capitalist protestors to put forward their POV on the blog. These are the questions I thought I might ask - anyone have any comments or suggestions?

** Can you envisage any circumstances in which some good would come of the G20 summit?

** What is your opinion of organisations, like Oxfam and Greenpeace, which proceed on the assumption that lobbying delegates at such summits might have some purpose?

** What do you hope to achieve with the protests you have organised around the summit?

** Some people are saying that the anti-capitalist protest movement is making a comeback after several years in which its activities were largely unreported. Have you noticed an increase in the number of people becoming active in the movement over the last year or so?

** Do organisations like Schnews have a codified belief system or set of objectives to which its activists subscribe, or does each activist have his/her own set of beliefs and objectives? Are there any aims around which most activists coalesce? Would it be correct to characterise the anti-globalisation movement, broadly speaking, as anarchist ? or are you creating a new political philosophy?

** If the aim of your movement is, essentially, the overthrow of capitalism, do you accept that the achievement of this aim would result in short-to-medium term chaos in the G20 countries (accepting that chaos, impoverishment and starvation are already the order of the day in the majority world)? Do you believe that such a correction is both necessary and inevitable? And if so, can you envisage any circumstances in which the populations of the G20 countries could be persuaded to sign up to the anti-capitalist programme voluntarily?

Where is everyone? Are you all reading Bjorn Lomborg?

God (tho obvioulsy I am skeptcal (not cynical) about god, I hope I haven't killed a sticky thread!

PW, here is the sleeve notes on Lomborg's most recent book 'Cool It', which gives a better precis than I could give;

"Bjorn Lomborg argues than many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered t stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years.

"Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, (he) argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply - which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the dabate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent."

He has written his own precis in Comment os Free, herewww.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/15/carbonemissions.climatechange

It really is worth looking at the sensible counter arguments in this as so much is at stake. As well as Cool It www.amazon.co.uk/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0462099121/ref=pd_sim_b_5 there is also an interesing little book called ( Billion to make the world a better place

As far as Al Gore is concerned, he is fast becoming known as a charlaton who is simply jumping on the best band wagon to keep his profile (and earnings up). As a lefty liberal, I was as shocked as anyone to discover this.

Well, I'm not anti troops in Zim

But more seriously, on a personal level, I'm interested in why they see Zim as Africa's problem vs Iraq being a global problem. I concede that possibly I am losing sight of the bigger picture but it makes no sense to me and I feel if I could understand that I might better understand the decision making process re International Relations.

I haven't read Dambisa's book yet but I assume the point is that Aid doesn't really get to where it needs to nor does it address the fundemental issue that led to the need for aid in the first place. It's all very well to provide medical care today, but what are you doing about improving understanding of health overall? Or I guess - give someone a fish and you feed them for a day but give them a net and you feed them for life? I would be interested if it came up but I am not sure it would right now?

And thanks on the husbands!

Thank you avi and good question about the apology!

MT, sorry for misinterpreting the conspiracy aspect. Can you give a precis of the Lomberg arguments? I'm pushed for time and I'm not going to be able to read whole books.

Re. the dung - it's not about penalising the women for using it (as you say, it's a perfectly sensible and sustainable resource) - it's about the fact that it tends to have disastrous consequences for the respiratory health of the women and children in the home. So the idea is (I guess - haven't looked at Habb's link yet) to provide alternative fuel sources, or alternative cooking areas, that won't have such terrible health effects.