Challenge

[Petri]

Forget about nuclear war, dumb presidents and stubborn arabs.

There are, in fact, bigger and more serious problems to face. Do people have ANY idea about what they are?? or even understand the SCALE of the consequences??
Let me pick a few ones; global warming, pollution by thirld world countries and our own, energy problems, overpopulation etc etc?

I just want to ask this; How aware are people of these problems? In US, Russia or anywhere.
If a modern president don´t engage these things I would call that an unknowing and naive president.

[Dr_Woland]

>> If a modern president don´t engage these things I would call that an unknowing and naive president. <<

Try to find any kind of policy statement by George W Bush on these topics? You'll search a long time :-(


I think you've made a very valuable point, Petri. Most politicians - if they think of these issues AT ALL - see them simply as a way to get votes, by saying "the right thing at election time". Then they do nothing at all (until maybe the next election).

The climate talks this week illustrate the point exactly. A large Western nation (guess which?) has decided that it won't reduce emissions levels AT ALL, and thinks it can "buy" the right to carry on polluting from poorer countries, by bribing them. Then it has the HYPOCRISY to claim that it is "buying the right to use the "sinks" of the rain-forest" exclusively for ITS pollution!!!

In Britain, it took PM TOny Blair FOUR YEARS to make ANY kind of remark about the environment. When it came, it was so weak it was useless. Suddenly when the country was submerged under 2 metres of water, he decided to say something about global warming. Even then, he did not say that global warming MIGHT be responsible for the heaviest flooding in British history?

It's interesting - if I am allowed to talk about politicians even so? - that Ralph Nader got such a high percentage of the vote. Considering how high his costs were to run, and how much money he was competing against from a system which wants to put its own puppet into the job of President, it's remarkable how well he did.

If there was any REAL (rather than cosmetic) control about the amount of money which may be spent on a campaign, it's interesting to speculate what the outcome might have been?

Dr W.

[Inga_Tepljashina]

Hi Petri!

This is really important issue. I read in one of the russian newspapers "Argumenty i fakty" ("Arguments & facts") about current polution situation in Russia. The map they published was quite scary. It shows russian cities with the greatest level of air polution (there are 22 of them, almost all big and mid-sized cities)!!! The map also indicates some nuclear related spots, dangerous for ecology (5 - are called as "very dangerous situation")!

Regarding overpopulation - I can tell, that Russia and Estonia don't seem to have this problem at the moment. In both countries number of people dying is exceeding number of newborn babies (demographical crisis). Young parents don't want or can't afford to have more than just one child!!!

Although, globally this problem exists, for example in China or India... I spoke to some chinese people and they said, that nowadays families in China (especially in cities) tend to have 1 or 2 kids. I think they also have some law restrictions as well.

Regards,
Inga

[Petri]

It seems to me that most of these problems (except perhaps overpopulation) are in the hands of our industries. They have the knowledge and the money to develope things.
(And the best ability to analyse the present and our future.)

I think someone (who?) should create an overnational institute to engage some of these issues. Like the United Nations.
Most countries should be involved and it should have good political and economical power. We could call it the United Grasshoppers and it would be led by ex president Boris the alcoholic.

Does anything like this excist or have there even been talks about it??