Malaysia Boleh (Can)?
What if your family lived in a home on island you couldn’t leave? With limited amount of food and safe drinking water, it would be very important to make things last, wouldn’t it? Especially when your family kept growing, and growing and growing! Well, it doesn’t matter where your home is because we all live on an island we can’t leave. So please, use only what you need because supplies truly are limited. We can do that.
The above is the transcript of perhaps the most inspiring movie clip I have ever seen – Island Home, by ECO (Earth Communication Office). For those of you who have never seen this, please do so at http://www.oneearth.org/
I vaguely remember that during my primary school education, my teacher did tell us to about taking care of the environment by doing the 3 Rs – Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. I don’t think that their words actually have any impact on my thoughts and actions. In fact, now that I look back, I have the impression that they don’t actually care very much of the environment themselves. Hence, I am guilty that I am not such an eco-friendly person at all throughout most of my life.
If I was a good representation of an average Malaysian city school kid, I would say that perhaps the environmental impact due to our actions was one of the last thoughts in my mind. What do we know? We are just a bunch of pampered, text-memorising-and-regurgitating machines, trained in an exam-oriented education system. Yes, we are told that our actions are causing major environmental impacts on Earth, but are there any chances where students are allowed to experience for ourselves the damages we have caused to our Mother? A field trip to two locations, perhaps – one to a national park, another to our good-old-friendly-neighbourhood landfill. Oh wait, field trips aren’t that effective, I guess. All we have to do is oh, memorise say 80 over moral values. That will be enough to ensure that we all turn out to be ethical human beings. Good job, Malaysia! What a typical Malaysia “Boleh”.
As with many developing countries, Malaysia is criticised of trading off the environment for economic growth. During the reign of Mahathir, especially, Malaysia was knocked by developed countries, saying that we were destroying our most valuable heritage just to fill our hunger for more land. The response to these criticisms was usually a “mind your own business”. Of course, what do those developed countries know? After all, they are but a bunch of rich people looking down on us struggling developing countries. Oh wait, didn’t most of those developed nations do the same mistake of trading off environment for economic growth? Maybe it’s just me, but perhaps their words are something to be pondered and considered carefully.
“‘Malaysia boleh!’ is Malaysia’s national catch cry. It translates to “Malaysia can!” and Malaysia certainly can. Few countries are as good at wasting money. It is richly endowed with natural resources and the national obsession seems to be to extract these, sell them off and then collectively spray the proceeds up against the wall.”
“Most Malaysians are convinced that the eyes of the world are on their country and that their leaders are world figures. This is thanks to Malaysia’s tame media and the bravado of former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad. The truth is, few people on the streets of London or New York could point to Malaysia on a map much less name its prime minister or capital city.”
“The KLCC development in central Kuala Lumpur is an example. It includes the Twin Towers, the tallest buildings in the world when they were built, which was their point. It certainly wasn’t that there was an office shortage in Kuala Lumpur — there wasn’t. Malaysians are very proud of these towers. Goodness knows why. They had little to do with them. The money for them came out of the ground and the engineering was contracted out to South Korean companies.”
“As it is, Malaysia will become a net oil importer in 2011 — that’s just five years…… It is time to move on, time to prepare the economy for life after oil. But, like Nero fiddling while Rome burned, the Malaysian Government is more interested in stunts like sending a Malaysian into space when Malaysia’s inadequate schools could have done with the cash…… That’s not Malaysia “boleh”, that’s Malaysia “bodoh” (stupid).”
The above quotations are from an article by Michael Backman, with the title: “While Malaysia fiddles, its opportunities are running dry.” What’s interesting is that if domestic demand for oil grows at 4% per annum, Malaysia will be a net importer by the year 2010, a year earlier than that estimated by Michael Backman. But who cares? The more important thing is that Petronas’s net profit rose 7.7 percent to 46.4 billion Ringgit (US$13.3 billion; euro9.9 billion) in the financial year ended March 31 from 43.1 billion Ringgit in the previous year, right?
Please visit here for the exact news on The Star Online.
I wonder how the government is spending the 48.3 billion Ringgit in tax, dividend, export duty and royalties just from Petronas alone. Oh, why not build a 1.5 km tall building near Singapore? That’ll surely show the Singaporeans that Malaysia is more “Boleh”. Even if it doesn’t, it certainly will show those people in Taiwan and Dubai, yeah?
I wish there will be a time that everybody in the world, especially Malaysians, can use only what we need because supplies truly are limited. We can do that.
XJ:
how in the world is visiting a landfill or park suppose to teach people about the damage that we have caused? you know eventually the field trip will just involve ppl having a nice escape from regular classes and talking their way as they walked through the parks/landfill.
Often a lot of the things we learn on paper such as these values were suppose to make it easier for us to make the right decision upon our first encounter, and not make the wrong decision and suffer through it before we learn the lesson.
And yeah those darn other countries are definitely also sacrificing environment for economic growth. I think the only reason they keep saying things like that to us is because everytime we develope, we do cut trees and stuff to damage the environment, whereas those guys, with their massive land and barren desserts, think its ok to play around there.
about KLCC……..really dun have office shortages ar. But every floor of the thing is filled with workers. If the twin towers weren’t there,where’d all those workers be? Altho I am aware of the fact that most of the top portion of the tower serves no purpose except to to stretch the tower high enough to become tallest building in the world. And I believe, during its completion, it did make a mark on the world, and ppl from around the world knew of the existence of the new tallest building in the world. It might have lost its fame after being topped by higher buildings now. But I believe it made its mark when it was in first place.
I’m not really sure how much exactly we are spending to send a Malaysian into space, but I thought it just involved sending some great candidate to be selected on some space mission. How much money could you waste on 1 guy?
Petronas get profit no good meh?
Lastly, why the sudden interest in the environment?
28 July 2007, 1:23 amHean:
The national park-landfill example is just one of the many things students can visit. I’m just trying to pick the two extremes, where national parks are preserved in their undeveloped, untarnished natural form, while landfills are probably one of the dirtiest places due to human activities. They serve more of a before-and-after effect, giving the students some idea how human beings has been harming the environment. Obviously, other examples can apply to, if they serve the purpose.
As for the “moral values” we had to memorise during our school year, I highly doubt they are effective at all. I believe the best way to approach moral issues is to have a discussion as we encounter it. Many times, during our curriculum, we can actually notice moral issues, especially in subjects like biology, economics and et cetera. I believe this approach is better as they gives students a chance to really ponder about the issues and their implications. However, I do not expect everybody to come up with the same conclusion or view towards an action.
I believe we must at least consider the advice or criticism given to us by developed nations. I am sure they have done the mistakes we are doing now and it is best that we avoid them by coming up with alternative plans and strategies.
Regarding the Petronas Twin Towers, even if there is a shortage of office, do you you it is justifiable economically to build two buildings, which so happens would be the tallest building in the world upon completion? I doubt so. The higher the building is, the more complications there are.
I do agree that Malaysia built the Twin Towers just because they will be the tallest buildings in the world. You are certainly right that they made a mark in the world, and put Malaysia on the map (in a sense). However, whether the pros are more than cons or vice versa is surely a good discussion topic, and very debatable indeed.
Russia agreed to foot the bill of training those 2 finalists of the Angkasawan Program as well as offered one seat for a Malaysian astronaut for their expedition to the ISS (International Space Station) in October this year. This happens after Malaysia’s purchase of 18 Sukhoi Su-MKN fighter jets from Russia, worth about 1 billion USD. Yes, you heard my right, it is spelled with a B!
Depending on what you think of human’s consumption of fossil fuel and its impact, you can have different opinion about Petronas’s increased net profit. While that can be explained by the seemingly ever-rising, and overpriced oil prices, what remain certain is this: our domestic consumption is increasing. I dare say this is the case for most, if not all the countries in the world. This is not a good sign, considering the possibility of climate change the I believe we are responsible for. In addition, Petronas, I believe, is not paying enough for the social as well as environmental cost of its producing crude oil.
Furthermore, I think our government should be investing more money in research for alternative, renewable and non-polluting fuel. The people must be educated, successfully, about environmental issues and their moral implications. More things can be done to encourage reducing our consumption, especially of water and energy, reusing our supplies, and recycling our used products. Of course, this is another topic all together which I will not dwell on here.
One thing you are wrong is that I don’t have a sudden interest in environment. This is an issue which has been in my mind for a long time. It’s just that I don’t discuss with many people.
28 July 2007, 3:18 amXJ:
I understand why you picked the landfill and parks as examples, its just that I don’t feel that it’ll actually have any significant effect on the participants of the trip.
Often the issues regarding moral values which people ponder and debate over are related to 1 moral value. And therefore discussing these issues is merely to decide which morale value in that current situation is more important. In a scenario where only 1 moral value is involved, for example say, a guy robbing a bank, the answer becomes quite apparent. When we learn moral values I believe its important that we learn them individually until we have well mastered these values before we ponder over the more complex issues.
If we are ever to achieve economic growth, we need to expand towards some direction, that’s why its called growth, and for growth to occur, environment has got to go.
Going back to the twin towers being economically justifiable, I don’t really see why not. Every floor of the building is being occupied,2 tall buildings would definitely have saved more space compared to building 6 short ones, and since you’ve already reached “so” high, why not add a few more meters while you’re at it. Its like killing 2 birds with 1 stone. America had twin towers(once), it wasn’t wasted.
Regarding space missions, I can see see the relations between the jets and the astronaut in space now. But then you can’t completely say that we bought those jets solely because we could send our guys up to space. I means the jets would contribute to national security. PLus, its not like its the first time we bought stuff like that from the Russians.
I understand that petrol prices have increased recently, but being overpriced……I don’t really think so. Petrol prices in Malaysia are still relatively cheaper than many other places. The only reason its citizens are calling it overpriced is because the price of the petrol has increased, but I don’t think its really increased to a point where you can really call it “overpriced” yet. Climate change, I believe we are responsible for contributing to it, but there have been views claiming that these climate changes are also a natural phenomenon, we merely quickened it a little.
Well we have been making alternative fuel from that palm oil we ahve so much on, and results are getting more promising each day, by the time we’ve exhausted our fossil fuels, we’ve probably have mastered the use of palm oil as an alternative fuel.
28 July 2007, 12:36 pmkhensthoth:
In our current education system in Malaysia, where most of the materials are spoon-fed to students, most student would take advantage of such field trips as escape. Some students who has developed a more matured and a critical way of thinking would understand the significance of such trips. Visiting landfills might let the students know the impact of human consumption and what irresponsible and unsustainable development would led to, and prompt the students to change the habit or his lifestyle. Visits to natural parks, on the other hand would let the student know the importance of conserving the flora and fauna of this world.
Obviously not all students would benefit from such trips. Those who change and influence others would be an important step towards a better future. Students who do not benefit from them might one day look back and ask themselves the reason they overlooked this issue or the ideas such field trips were trying to convey.
Moral Studies in Malaysia is not useful, in my opinion, at least it is so in the High School level. In College level, you are exposed to other ideas and philosophy, such as utilitarianism; in High School you merely memorise certain moral values which you regurgitate when the examination comes. The marks you obtain for your Moral Studies depends solely on how efficient you relate some incident to some values and how fast you can write. It involves a certain percentage of guess work and luck. It doesn’t actually teach you anything, other than the definitions of tens of moral values.
Discussing about the moral issues and the ethics of an incident, however, make you think about the issues surrounding it, if it is right or wrong for someone to do so. Take your robber analogy: What if the robber is forced to rob the bank, to which if he refuses, some kidnapper of his children would kill them. Does this make it right for him to rob the bank? What should he do in this case? This is things that should be discussed in Moral Studies. In addition the discussion would also encourage student participation, which Malaysians are severely deprived of.
Regarding the environmental issues, it is not right to sacrifice the environment for economic growth. One might think it is right to do so because all the current human development has seriously overlooked the implications of the development. In other words, they have to sacrifice the environment because it was not in their consideration initially. Take recycling: It is hard for normal citizens who are genuinely interested in reducing his waste and recycling whatever he can because things are not made with recycling in mind. People didn’t know, or were ignorant of the complications and implications of plastics being in the environment for hundreds, even thousands of years. If we knew, and we genuinely cared, we would have found a way to reduce our waste to the minimum.
I do not know if you have noticed but we generate a lot of waste daily, most of them non-biodegradable plastics. A pack of cheese, which has 24 pieces of individually wrapped cheese, use a lot of plastics. This can be generalised to everything you use. We could have developed an extremely biodegradable plastic in the first place. The technology is currently here, but it’s slight more expensive. However, if these biodegradable and natural plastics (bioplastics) have had the time to evolve and develop as the current plastics have, the price would be similar and people would be more aware of it. To sacrifice the environment for economic growth is downright unethical, as the saying goes “we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.” How do you expect future generations to live if you do not start thinking of your footprint on earth, and what are you going to say to them if one day you were asked by your children and grandchildren why didn’t you wake up and cared more?
The so called alternative fuel also raises other issues as well. I am personally not against the development of biofuel. However, in recent years there have been massive deforestation and displacement of natural flora and fauna from a piece of land just to make way for the plantations of palm to obtain palm oil, or sugar cane and corn to obtain ethanol. In addition, such land initially were agriculture land used for food crop. In other to make more money. If our global population growth continues (which raises another moral issue), we might not have enough food to go around.
In your comment, you said that “by the time we’ve exhausted our fossil fuels, we’ve probably mastered the use of palm oil as an alternative fuel”. So if we mastered the use of palm oil as an alternative fuel when fossil fuel has run out, what is now the mainstream fuel? If you meant the use of biofuel to substitute fossil fuel as a mainstream fuel, the government need a lot of investment into it right now, and our current outlook is not that great at all.
28 July 2007, 7:51 pmXJ:
regarding the robber scenario that you’ve upgraded, that’s an example of what I mean by scenarios involving more than 1 moral value. In that case we are considering the importance of life compared to not stealing. So this is a more complex scenario compared to my basic robber scenario. If we want to discuss about issues like that, we first need to be clear of each individual value first so that when we look at more complex situations, we do not miss out on certain morale values. But yeah the exams we take aren’t a good indication of how well we mastered these values. Nonetheless the message has been passed on. Whether you failed or passed the exam, whether you were spoon fed or you pondered over it, in the end you still get the morale value.
About the field trip, you’re assuming that the western education system a.k.a. non-spoon fed would allow the participants to learn more. Well my opinion is that whatever education method you’ve grown up with, you tend to dislike it over time and wished for the other one.like the old saying ” the grass is greener on the other side”. I’m sure some “non-spoon-fed” boy out there is writing a blog about how much he wants to be spoon-fed.
I’m just curious, when you meant saving the environment, did you means saving rain forest? or saving the ozone? or something else? If you’re just plain worried about animals and trees going into extinction…..well i don’t really think there’s much we can do about that. Sooner or later they’re gonna die anyways. And how often do you hear ppl talking on the streets saying how they wished to see a dodo or some other extinct animal? The thing is I don’t really feel that many ppl really care about animals being extinct. And I don’t think our children would really care either. People don’t crave for something they never seen before.If its the ozone you’re worried about, whether we lose the fight with the depleting ozone or not I’m not sure, but once again I don’t feel it’ll make much of a difference, cause I believe someone’ll definitely find a solution to the problem. Not that I encourage people to kill the ozone, just that there’s a limit as to how much I’m willing to do.
Don’t worry too much about not enough food going around just yet. In fact the total amount of food being planted is definitely sufficient to feed everyone. The problem is loads of the food planted are used to feed livestock. cows and pigs eats way more than us after all. So when that times comes, grown food will still be sufficient, but then probably meat prices may rise, heh.
umm, if we mastered the use of palm oil as an alternative fuel when fossil fuel runs out……., palm oil becomes the mainstream fuel lah.and of course government isn’t investing a lot into it right now, its progressing well as it is already. Plus we’ve still got a lot of fossil fuel lying around.Oh and I think palm oil’ll probably be cheaper and more energy efficient than ethanol.
And yeah, we do you use too much plastic bags……..so you’ve changed to those grocery bags now?
29 July 2007, 12:34 amHean:
A person who always think that the grass is greener on the other side is probably a person who feels insecure of what he has, does not know what he wants, and is ignorant. Each education systems has their pros and cons. I agree that spoon-feeding allows more information to be delivered in a relatively shorter period of time. However, I for one strongly doubt that spoon-feeding is effective when it comes to moral issues. However, moral issues are not just information and facts. There is no definite answer to moral issues. Things are usually not a simple black and white. Grey is the usual colour, metaphorically speaking.
XJ, you said, “If you’re just plain worried about animals and trees going into extinction…..well i don’t really think there’s much we can do about that. Sooner or later they’re gonna die anyways.” Since you are going to die one day, can I deny you any medical treatment in the event that you are sick?
The fact is that our existence is not sustainable. The fact is that if every human being on this Earth were going to live comfortably, with enough space, food, water and other basic needs, we will need another Earth altogether! World hunger is an issue that we should be concerned about. Most of us are just being pampered and ignorant throughout our lives, growing up in a country where food production and supply are not in shortage.
We do not own the Earth; we merely hold it in trust for our children. I do not think that it is morally acceptable to even let our fossil fuel run out. If palm oil alone is to replace fossil fuel in satisfying out ever growing need for more fuel, we will need to sacrifice undeveloped land. That will give rise to another interesting moral dilemma. I for one strongly disagree with it.
Yes, I am using green grocery bags. All of us should.
29 July 2007, 1:35 amXJ:
First of all, you definitely have can’t deny me of medical treatment. Because mankind will not face extinction. If we do face extinction it is only because we lost the race against time. Its different for everything else, they can’t look after themselves like we do. If you could do some by pass surgery to help dying plants I’d say go for it. But there’s only so much we can do for them, and it’s just not gonna be enough in the end.
Fossil fuel is there for a reason man. If we don’t finish it then some other generation after us will definitely finish it, so its ok for them to take the blame?
Now back to spoon feeding, perhaps grass doesn’t always look greener on the other side. But having never tried the grass on the other side before, you can’t be sure that its gonna be better just because the grass here doesn’t work for you.
We don’t need another earth altogether to allow everyone to live comfortably. Its just that some countries are poorer and some countries are richer. Thus the problem. America produces far more food than its population needs, thus putting it in first place for the worlds obesity list.
29 July 2007, 2:54 amWen:
I recently went on a field trip in Australia. Amongst the places we visited were a state forest which bordered on a national park AND a landfill. =p
Contrary to what XJ said, it did educate me on “the damage that we have caused”. Just seeing the gaping hole left from mining coal and the water levels in the dams was enough to shock me. Plus I learnt stuff like engineers in the 80′s thought it was fine to redirect a river into a pipe just because it was in their way. And that no, it isn’t fine today =D
As for the statement that we have merely quickened climate change, check out this picture :
http://img175.imageshack.us/my.php?image=climatechangetv2.jpg
It shows that there’s been a drastic increase in temperature in the past few decades. It’s from my lecture notes =p but I think it was released in a recent IPCC report
I agree with the part about certain species going extinct eventually anyway though. I mean, look at the dinosaurs. They died before we even got the chance to do anything to them. That’s an issue that was raised during my field trip. The environmental agencies here are focused on maintaining the environment as it is so that future generations can see ash trees etc. But at the same time, you could say that they are disturbing the natural progression of the environment. For example, we learnt in biology that um…the environment grows from little shrubs to bigger trees and finally to rainforests. But they are preventing the ash tree forests in Australia from becoming rainforests (ignoring the fact that bush fires occur frequently here la)
I think the main problem right now is the mentality people have towards the environment. People in Malaysia see no problems in tossing their rubbish into drains, unaware that the water will probably flow back into the rivers and eventually into our taps. Here in Australia, some farmers allow cow effluents to flow into their irrigation channels instead of containing them in effluent ponds. These effluents flow into rivers and then out to the sea. They cause algal blooms which kills fishes and other ocean life. When approached, those farmers say they see nothing wrong with it. Generally, the idea is that they probably won’t see the effects during their generations. Which basically means they are leaving it to the future generations to deal with.
I agree with Micheal Backman when he says that the Malaysian Government is good at spending money. Instead of building a sports complex in London that will be used by our so-called world class athletes (ok…some of them are pretty good. But not enough to justify such an expensive place), they could spend it on fixing the roads back home. However, since Micheal Backman is criticizing Malaysia, why not touch on China? They recently drowned quite a bit of their heritage in the name of the Three Gorges Dam. How about the fact that Australia and America are among the few developed nations that refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol? Of course, I don’t think the Kyoto Protocol is enough to stop climate change, but it is a step in that direction.
Yes, I think Malaysia could manage its resources better. But we are also
It’s also funny what he said about Malaysia. I’m watching a show now that mentions Malaysia quite a bit =p So they can’t point out where Malaysia is on the map. (Actually, from my experience in Australia, most of them have visited KL before. But I guess it’s somewhat of an exception since I’ve only been to places where there are many Malaysians) But there was this show that exposed how few Americans recall who’s their 1st president, let alone the 2nd. So I’m not surprised they have no idea where Malaysia is. BUT they have heard of us. It used to be that you would tell people you’re from Malaysia and they would just stare blankly. Now, they’ll at least ask where is that and you would have to tell them that it’s near Singapore =p
31 July 2007, 10:08 pmWen:
whoa. I wrote a lot =D
31 July 2007, 10:08 pmXJ:
Okay, I’ll give in to field trips then. Although I honestly don’t think people will really appreciate what is to be taught in the field trip, but here’s living proof so I’ll drop that matter.
About Wen’s statistic on climate history, I just wanted to point out that although numbers don’t lie, they do when used in the world of statistics. What you have been shown in merely climate records for the past 1000 years. In order to really understand the situation that is going on, we need to look way back into the past. If you do so then you will find that every 100 thousand years or so there will be a great increase in the earth’s temperature. the climate change we are seeing now is just another indication that that cycle is returning again. Make some study under Ice Age. That should be enlightening.
Many of the states in America have already participated in the Kyoto Protocol. The only reason several others and Australia did not participate was because they don’t think they could decrease their CFC emission fast enough as stated in the Kyoto Protocol, nonetheless they are still fighting against CFC.
Other than that, pretty much agree with Wen’s statement
1 August 2007, 7:32 pmHean:
Drilling of ice core for the study of the air composition during its formation can give us data up to 700 thousand years ago. Although those data are quite reliable, many will argue that they might be contaminated. For really reliable data, we have to measure it ourselves. Now, modern human evolved about 200 thousand years ago, you can’t possibly expect we will have accurate 100 thousand years of data. The fact is that the most detailed data that we have collected only spans 50 years to the past. In another words, XJ’s expectation that we have detailed data for 100 thousand years is just not possible.
Taking the data from the ice cores, which I think is quite reliable, we can see that there has been a few ice age and subsequent increase in temperature in the past. Some argue that this temperature change is periodical, and we just happened to be in the time when the temperature is increasing. However, the past data cannot explain the arguably “exponential” increase in temperature in recent years, which happened to have started about the same time as the Industrial Revolution. Now we have accurate historical recording that the Industrial Revolution is marked with staggering increase in human population as well as the start of using fossil fuel as an energy source. I doubt it is an coincidence that the consumption of fossil fuel, increase in greenhouse gases and temperature happen at the same time!
It is a known fact that USA and Australia are the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. It is also a known fact that these 2 countries have not rectified the Kyoto Protocol.
I would like to point out here that many believe that the reason behind them not rectifying the Kyoto Protocol is that they will need to cut down their carbon emission, which in turn will impose a pressure on their economic growth.
I would also like to point out that CFC is not a greenhouse gas. CFC is one of the many ozone depleting substances, which have been addressed in the Montreal Protocol, not Kyoto Protocol. Global warming is not due to the depletion of ozone layer. It is due to the increase in greenhouse gases, though there are those who argue against this statement.
1 August 2007, 8:56 pmXJ:
Okay so we don’t have detailed data, but either way it is a sign that this sort of event has happened before. And what I’m trying to say is not that we didn’t have anything to do with this phenomenon, but I’m saying that we merely sped things up, but in the end that fate is inevitable. It doesn’t matter if we never bothered to pollute or if we did pollute like hell, either way its gonna happen. And the way I see, rather than no polluting at all(slower technological advancement)to prolong the time but would eventually lead to us(humans) suffering an ice age,we could pollute(faster technological advancement), shorten our time, but at least stand a chance to find a better way to survive the ice age.
Well I seriously don’t think those countries are doing it just because it’ll stop their economic growth, after all many states of the US have joined in this cause. Its just the time limit they were given weren’t sufficient. No point making a promise if you can’t keep it.
regarding that whole CFC and greenhouse gas matter, sorry confused between the the protocols.
If you deplete the ozone layer……more heat gets in……..so more heat gets trapped……..not considered as cause of global warming ar?
1 August 2007, 10:18 pmHean:
If you have understood what I have been saying, XJ, you would have realised that what we have done is not “merely speeding things up”, but we are on the verge of tipping the balance or passing the point of no return. You are saying as if we human beings have supremacy over other living beings and over this planet we call home. I am disappointed that a lot of people tend to have that mentality. But all is not lost, hopefully.
3 August 2007, 5:39 pmXJ:
Tipping what balance? its gonna lead to the ice age sooner or later just like it has in history? its not like what we’re doing is gonna change this outcome.and so far I don’t really see any other living being on par with us.
Btw……didn’t this post begin about Malaysia?
3 August 2007, 8:29 pmHean:
Although there are some who argue for the theory that there might be an ice age in the future, we do not know that for sure, nor there is much indication for it. There is no valid reason for you to just assume that another ice age will occur in the future.
The reason you don’t really see any other living being on par with human being is because human beings has been developing and living in isolation, relatively speaking, from the nature. We are very good at shaping the environment around us to suit us, giving the impression that other life on Earth is not important for our survival. Luckily, it is a good sign that there are more and more conscious minds in the world who care for the rights and life of other living things. We do not own the world. We are just merely another organism in this world.
I wrote this entry mainly with environment and sustainable development in mind. Having lived most of my life in Malaysia, it is natural that I based this entry on it.
3 August 2007, 9:28 pmXJ:
oh so was never about Malaysia lah? Oh and regarding the ice age, most likely it’ll happen the same way it has all the time. Basically global warming gets so intense it changes the oceanic currents which regulate heat in part of the earth. No more oceanic currents, no heat regulation so some places start getting super cold and then ice age…..
well since this was never about Malaysia I also duwan to argue dee…..
3 August 2007, 11:48 pmCJY:
Well about the Ice Age, scientific theories (based on proof) state that it happens every few millenia. If so, then really there’s not much we can do to prevent it. But we can do stuff to delay it from happening. Now i suppose there can be arguments that say it’s just a theory, which it is. But assuming that it’s true, then there would still be arguments whether we should just do what we’re doing now, coz whether we speed it up or not, it’s gonna happen, or whether we should try to preserve the order of things, and try to delay it for as long as we can.
Hang on. Why am I even talking about this? Irrelevant.
Now then. Back to the main topic. Malaysia!
I just wanna say that I don’t really wanna say much about this. Hean and XJ both have your own thoughts and concepts. You can’t expect the other one to agree with you in this, and it looks like you’re getting frustrated. Don’t bother.
But yes, i agree with Hean that XJ’s views on human superiority may be a bit misplaced. I also agree with XJ (at least I think that this is what XJ said) that Hean’s skepticism and criticism of Malaysia may be a bit hasty and premature. These things you gave are proofs, but they are proofs from a narrow and fairly shallow point of view.
BUT then again this is MY point of view, which is different from either one of yours. And you can’t make me change it. So don’t bother.
Signed, Sealed, Undelivered
4 August 2007, 12:05 amGee:
-.-” swt… is this really posting a comment? Why all of you are just like writting an essay? haha… mind me to link?
6 September 2007, 9:19 pm