It's not worth it.
So I was watching a bit of news while waiting for the 7PM show on Channel8 when they reported on the Copenhagen climate-talk-thingy(not that interested in current affairs) and protests against all the politicking that ensued within the meeting-thingy itself.
But seriously, did anyone expect anything out of this kind of meeting?
Every country has its own interests to protect, and the meeting would be spent trying to bring down this protection by these countries, in order for all of the 195 countries in the world to settle on how much carbon should be emitted per year.
It's impossible for such a pointless meeting to bear fruit. The intention is there, the idea is there, but the means not.
Smaller, less-developed countries are bullied into not developing because developing would increase their carbon emissions, and if the bigger countries are going to do stupid stuff like impose sanctions such as 'Emit X amount of carbon = pay Y amount of money'. Poor countries won't be able to afford it. But the bigger countries would. Development and financial wealth will always be more important than protection of the weather.
And what ran through my mind when watching the report was how irresponsible the people protesting are. Do they think that a mere congregation of 5 people(I think) hanging a banner down the Sydney Opera House campaigning against the politicking in Copenhagen would help? It is indeed a remarkable feat for them to be able to hang that banner in the first place, and it probably was headline news in many countries, but all this actions could result in is publicity.
Is publicity going to help in their war against carbon emissions from countries?
People are too naive, it's not going to work. Things would remain as it is because it's structure is stable and none of the countries would want to get out of this comfort zone. And even if there are countries aiming to get out of the comfort zone, there are other bigger countries to reign in the smaller ones. This jostling is a waste of time and money and more resources. Protests in a certain country won't make that country change its mind either, because the interests the country wishes to protect is/are far greater than human lives.
What can humans do to get their point across? Die? Threaten to die? Take the plunge for the government to heed them?
Is there a point?
To quote Stalin: One death is tragic. One million is statistics.
Really, no point. Why bother to fight when you can't fight it? What, to protect the Nature, to prove that you've tried but failed? To show to the world that you've got the guts to stand up against the power of the world(in a manner of speaking)?
Isn't it just a way to assuage your guilt of living up till now and leaving a lot of carbon footprints?
'Oh, I've released X amount of carbon, now I'm feeling guilty so I'm going to protest such that other people can't release as much carbon as me.'
They feel better that way after protesting, then they die down after the COP15. Irresponsible because they make themselves out to look like they've tried a great deal, when there's no work done at all.
What they should do is keep their cool, take over the government of their country, and then wreck havoc in their own country. Isn't that more substantial than making a lot of noise?
Oh what's that? Too much trouble to set-up your own political party, and too much trouble to campaign for a green, carbon-free country? That just means you're too idealistic. Not everyone in your country is as idealistic as you are, and if you can't persuade majority of your population you probably can't persuade the majority of the world, so is there a point in COP15 at all?
They say that Singaporean youths are apathetic about politics. I say it's because it doesn't make a difference whether we give a shit or not. We can't even vote yet ffs.
And the people who make headlines, they get their faces printed all over the newspapers. Why? Why are they getting billions of copies of themselves printed all over the world in paper which they are trying to save? OK I know newspaper isn't really paper, but you get the point.
And they get a lot of buzz from the Internet about them. If you were to type 'Sydney Opera House' into yahoo, you'd get a picture of the banner. Quite efficient eh?
Speaking about the Internet reminds me of virtual assets.
Everyone plugged into the Internet has virtual assets, be it your MSN, Yahoo! mail, Friendster account, Facebook account, Restaurant City, Mafia Wars, Pet Society, Friends For Sale, Travian, Battleon, Runescape, etc.
Everyone puts in time and effort into making sure that these assets grow properly. People would want to talk to their friends on MSN, would want to add their other friends into MSN, to perhaps keep a contact log in the form of MSN. As for games I need not elaborate.
So there are times when you get your friend to help you play certain of you online assets for you, like when I get my other 2 friends to cover me while I sleep on Travian. And I cover them while they sleep, because I have weird sleeping hours(as usual).
But what happens if I screw up? Or what happens if they screw up? It doesn't happen at all because we're perfect, but what if we screw up? What if an account gets hacked? Who should we trust/not trust?
Is there a point in a squabble of virtual assets?
To fall out with a friend over something that inconsequential, that pixellized, is it worth it?
-- 12/16/2009 02:15:00 AM
