Trevor.

I agree Turnip, you and BJChip are pragmatic, but, sadly, this pragmatism isn’t reflected by the Green message or the candidates.

The red direction is wrong. It will be the death of the Greens, just like it killed the Alliance.

Whether planned or not, and I think the organization of it was ongoing in anticipation of a triggering event myself, it was still perceived as connecting the “ordinary people” and their problems with inflation in every aspect of their lives and it is still as a result, NOT to be discounted by worrying about whether it was organized.

respectfully
BJ

Everyone brings their ideology here, including you. Sometimes it shows a lot, sometimes less. I think your generalization is vastly overstating the actual case, and in some ways providing a mirror insight into what YOU bring here.

Most of us are trying to work out ways for truth to be found, for justice to be accomplished in THIS society and for our kids to survive. If you have some other reason for visiting us that’s fine, but I don’t think you’re getting more than you give here in terms of ideology but you’re getting a lot more in terms of information.

As for the party rather than the blog, ideology clearly IS part of the reason we’ve been stuck in single digits forever, and likely will remain in single digits and it greatly limits our effectiveness at actually saving the planet for our kids.

BJ

I’m a green and I believe in pragmatic solutions and not idiotic ideology.
Go read anything that bjchip posts he’s a pragmatic green as well.

I will be the first to tell you that a lot of green policy is full of ideology that isn’t helpful. It isn’t helpful in getting the greens elected to parliment and it isn’t helpful in effecting change.

Take this for instance the green party can’t even come out and say that a reduced population would be a good thing. I was reading an article from the Green party magazine Te Awa by Louis Griffiths were she is telling us all that over population isn’t a problem instead the problem is that the rich have too much and we must evenly distribute it. She sounds more like a communist than a green. After we have evenly distributed everything according to Louis Griffiths the world will be fine and we can continue as usual. This is exactly what BP was alluding to in his post, she is sprouting ideology (communisim) as the answer and sadly for us all if we listen to people like Louis Griffiths we will only have failure.

I will try and simplify things so that people like Louis Griffiths can understand if we don’t have enough to go around it doesn’t matter how evenly we distribute everything some people will miss out!!!

Because it’s religion. The “Buy Kiwi Made” campaign is another example.

In the time I’ve been reading here, I’ve seen nothing but ideology. This blog is no different from US far-right blogs in this respect.

Pragmatic solutions that don’t fit with the ideology are ignored.

Care to paint a picture of what the future “system” will look like?

What part of history will you be drawing from to paint his picture?

My prediction is one of tribalism.

Basically a drop down a few rungs on Maslows levels of heirachy for the population.

Expect to see more lawlessness and tribes setting up their own systems for law and order (as being developed by the Asian community in Botany)

Gangs are the basic tenent of tribalism and I expect to see this develop across society.

Mutual clubbing together for the good of the tribe, and each tribe having their own “territory” (territory not just geopgraphical but trade, influence, etc.)

So we will have tribalism such as we see with the patriarcal Maori structure involving land and assets, together with overarching tribalsm such as the freemasons, catholic church, islam, black power, hells angels, bloods, cripps, rotary, etc.

In fact the overarching tribal systems are in place already, all that needs to happen is the geograhical tribes to be established.

This will come about when the concept of nationhood fails.

How do you see society structure in the future?

We all surely know in our heart of hearts that the world economy has been hi-jacked by a flawed system which thanks be to my god, is creaking at the seams, and about to be modified in a big way. To what, is the big question.

The change will cause us all severe pain, but then perhaps we deserve it for letting it go on for so long. I’m thankful though that we are resilient enough, and knowledgable enough to come through strengthened and changed for the better. Have faith it’ll all come right in the end.

The end is nigh ( for the present system). Study history and all will be revealed!

A lot of hard work went into the rail system. I am not as certain of a national rail system being unviable… but I have to agree that the rail system we currently have is underwater. With warming that could be true in more ways and places by the turn of the century, but that’s another thing.

Rail works in utterly cr@p weather. In Wellington we do notice that on occasion the weather isn’t so good It CAN be made to go quite a bit faster than the average truck and remain economic. It CAN be made to run by electricity for long distances. It can move stuff that would break a truck. Some advantages are there if someone actually reached out to take them. The routes used presently are .. mmm… sub-optimal and you have already pointed out the age of the locomotives. Coastal shipping can do much of the same work… we are after all. on a couple of islands, not in the red hot red heart of Oz/ .

Still, I feel VERY uneasy about the prospect of giving up rail transit… would rather keep it and work up a wood pellet fired steam engine…

respectfully
BJ