It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My First Post: The United Nations, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, and the brand new Sustainable

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SUBKONCIOUS

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: SUBKONCIOUS
So i'm a curious, since you work close with these people at the UN.. What is their position on ISIS? Seems like it would be a high priority for them to deal with that situation.. Lately it almost seems as if all the global players are just going to kick back and wait until Iran and Russia are forced to deal with the situation themselves..


Hence the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect was developed, which states that governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens, and if they don't then they themselves are not practicing sovereignty and the UN could come in to restore sovereignty.


Yes, but not only is Iraq's sovereignty dissolving, Their entire country is disintegrating... and no one will argue against the fact that the US is at fault... And now, you have the UN, not only not doing anything... but they are even advising the US to not intervene...


The US and Russia veto all of the time arguably necessary actions but ones that affect their geopolitical interests.


Ok... but what about the UN's geopolitical interest? Its becoming increasingly more difficult, not to believe that ISIS is being used as a tool, by globalists, to topple IRAN...

Should ISIS not be considered a threat to the US as of right now? Border protection has been so lacking lately that even a blind man in a wheel chair could cross it without issues. It scares me to death to think that ISIS members might be learning a little bit of spanish, entering America, and stationing themselves in major cities..

All of the Goals you mentioned are fantastic, and would absolutely be idealistic for the world as a whole.. but its the underlying interests that really worry me...


Thanks for the response. First, let me preface by saying that I do think that one of the modus operandi of the US and other very intelligent powers is to use "rebels" and civil wars to topple non-compliant regimes, whether that be in Libya, Syria, or Iran. Or many other places historically. I do believe that all kinds of machiavellian plans are being hatched. But seriously, there isn't some UN dude planning these civil wars. That is the US, NaTO, Russia, and the traditional old school powers up to their ancient and old tricks. In my opinion.

This is precisely why many of us are FOR a stronger international justice system. Seriously, one of the points of the UN was to stop countries like the US from toppling regimes, invading countries, etc. I'm all for the rule of law stopping the "law of the jungle."

I don't think that ISIS poses a credible threat within the US right now. Might be wrong. I also think that such rebels have been used to attack Libya and Syria so far. Perhaps Iran is next. But again, I think this is CIA/US/NATO doing, not UN.

Remember, it was the United States that told the world that Assad used chemical weapons and almost bombed him last year.

The UN investigative team said very clearly "We cannot make that attribution because the evidence is not there to conclusively show Assad did it." IF the UN was really all on the side of the rebels and toppling Assad/Iran, they would have backed up the US on that one.

As to the goals, why are you concerned about them? If you research the history of them and the expert input, they are the goals precisely because they have been deemed and researched to be some of the most pressing issues we have been facing for decades. It's a menu of societal priorities to improve our society: economically, socially, environmentally, and politically. But if you read the whole thing, and sit in the meetings, the overarching theme is MORE human rights, not less. MORE freedom, not less. More justice, not less. Etc.


edit on 25-7-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The UN is feared by certain demographics because it exudes an element of intellectualism and altruism. The same people who fear it and accuse it of being part of some "NWO" are normally the same people who fear everything from food stamps to education.

Tell your boss he (or she) should be proud of being part of the NWO 'cause it beats the hell out of being a part of the Old World Order.


Nice one, but curious when most of the rest of the world thinks the UN is a puppet of the US, while many Americans think that the UN is a socialist agenda against their interests, especially when Ol', "Read my lips" was one of the first to actually say, "A new world order".
As for 'beating the hell' out of the old world order, where's the difference? it doesn't say how all those goals will be achieved, it just mentions goals.... "No informations"
Well there is some, I think? oops no there is not. Oh yeah, that 2030, $1.25 subsistence per day thingy

what a carefully calculated figure that is don't you think? Let's see now, a pair of cheapest Asda/Walmart jeans you can buy for around £6.00 or $8,$9 or $10 whatever but not much more. Then go figure how many pairs of jean workers have to make per day, and their payment for each item, (PBR) Just one pair to get paid their daily subsistence, $1.25? Meh! I don't think so, and it's been going on from at the very least, the old century to the new.
So , do you see ASDA and Walmart..and all the rest being told by the UN to hike their jean prices BIG TIME, and all the way back down the line to the workers so's they can be taken out of the real, [enforced] poverty.
Enforced, is not a word the UN uses, Goals is.


There are a lot of assumptions in your response. I think that it isn't really viable for people to question the indicators if they haven't actually read or studied where those came from.

The indicator of $1.25 or 2.00 a day comes from the most poor countries, and what it takes in those to have basic caloric intake, clothes on your back etc. It's basically so one is not starving, in let's say Kenya or India.

There are a billion people living right now off that much. The goal is to reduce that so that less people are living off of subsistence levels.

You also have to look at the other goals, which clearly talk about improving standards of living far beyond that, decreasing extreme income inequality, and so on.

Moreover, all of the other goals speak to guaranteeing basic health services, housing, etc etc beyond the basic caloric counts.
edit on 25-7-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Did you read all of the sub-targets. And have you reviewed the concert of anti-povety solutions that are well researched?

It doesn't have anything to do with totalitarianism. First, most of these goals are voluntary.

Second, there are a whole slew of interventions that are already being done that definitely impact poverty, ranging from maternal and child nutrition to universal access to education to extending energy access to all people, etc. I think you would need to go and work in some countries like India to see how necessary these things are. There are still huge swaths of illiterate people in many countries. Many women and children are severely malnourished from birth, permanently impacting their cognitive development and productive capability. 700 million people in India have little or zero access to modern energy.

I suggest that you google "poverty trap." It is an interesting read.

Finally, contrary to the right wing claim, investing in virtually all of these interventions not only substantially reduces poverty but also from a self-centered perspective, actually on a cost-benefit analysis basis creates far more long-term economic gain fro ALL than not investing in these initiatives. This is well researched. Serious poverty and extreme income inequality actually harms everyone in the long run and inhibits country level economic development.


originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: xuenchen
Lots of Authoritarian/Totalitarian methods needed to achieve Agenda21.

Not easy is it.





Well, how about pick one aspect of Agenda 21 and let's discuss it and why you think that.


Sure.

from your 2nd posting;



"Sustainable Development Goals
Proposed goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere



Can all this be accomplished by non-authoritarian means ?

It would take an array of Socialist/Redistribution laws correct ?


edit on 25-7-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   

edit on 25-7-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But what would it take to achieve the goals and objectives ?

Is there a list of verifiable accomplishments ?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
It just doesn't make any sense. "sustainable development" is not shown in these 8 key points, rather, mostly improved standards of living which pans out to another form of population control. Development requires resources. There is no sustaining of resources on this earth. They are being depleted. We take from reserves where the earth has deposited, and scatter it across the globe. We pollute the land, water, air, soil... We are in the process of wiping out species at a rate some 100-1000x faster than pre-agricultural revolution era, and it seems to be accelerating. We've wiped out 40% of the world's phytoplankton over the 2nd half of the 20th century. We have overfished the world over. The atmosphere has increased carbon dioxide by 40%.

How is any of this sustainable? Why do you think that throwing more resources at a problem (overpopulation) will magically make those consumers disappear? You think that bringing people up to middle class levels will offset the decline in population increase over the century? Really? There is no solution on this planet. We've already passed .85c, and if we stopped industry, that would rise perhaps another 1.1c... nearly breaching the dangerous 2c level (that is highly conservative estimate).

It's good efforts, that should have been realized a generation prior. We needed global action in the 20th century. Now, this is just a horrible joke. Something to give people false hope. I see people who really want to help, and yet they seem to not accept reality. These efforts MAY help out for up to a generation, and then we are to the exact same place, and perhaps even sooner, as I already stated raising higher consumers vs increasing population of poor may not make any sense overall.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But what would it take to achieve the goals and objectives ?

Is there a list of verifiable accomplishments ?



Yes, there is for many of those. Refer to the Millennium Development Goals, which were the original and current development goals. The other goals haven't been targeted yet, such as the more comprehensive economic and environmental goals. Same with climate change.

www.un.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I'm not seeing any actual "results".

What am I missing?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Dude, the 8 goals you refer to are more focused on classical development goals, such as basic poverty, maternal health, education, etc. There is the environmental aspect but that wasn't focused on in the original MDGs. It is the SDGs, sustainable development goals, if you look at my second post, those are the upcoming far more comprehensive sustainable goals. They address most of these issues. Read the link for my second post. It includes far far more regarding environment and climate change. Here it is below. 17 goals and around 140 sub targets.

sustainabledevelopment.un.org...

The main one that is extremely difficult is climate change. They will have a climate goal and targets but they are waiting for the parallel UNFCCC negotiations to conclude before writing the exact targets so as to not undermine the process.

Yes, all of this should have been done a generation ago. Climate change and many of the other points you made about ecosystem destruction, species lost, etc, is already occurring. That is precisely why finally people are getting it. And the point is that we must act NOW to mitigate the worst future effects of environmental issues. As climate change people say, we must change the trajectory of all of this, from production to consumption to energy use, decouple the energy system from the economy, etc etc, such that we mitigate the WORST effects of climate change and so on. Continuing on the business as usual trajectory will lead to substantial consequences between 2050 and 20100.

As to general sustainability, all of this is an effort to finally curb the extremely unsustainable patterns of society. Do you not agree that this must be done, even if it is an incomplete effort?

I do agree however that we cannot experience limitless growth, and that there needs to be an effort to stabilize the population (not reduce it from here as that would be unethical or problematic). Also yes, we already have been calculated to be utilizing the sustainable resources of approximately 1.3 Earths. We passed the planetary limits in the 1980's, meaning the capacity of 1.0 Earths. Hence our environment will continue to decline if we do not change the trajectory.

However, to understand the whole sus dev movement you have to look at all of the interconnections. For example, to stabilize population as well as reduce poverty one has to invest in education, nutrition, public health, and other interventions. What this does is eventually trigger a demographic transition, which first causes the death rate to fall and a population explosion (which we've already seen), then later causes the birth rate to fall (which hasn't yet happened for the aforementioned reasons in developing countries), and then they equal each other. Developed countries are already there.


However, if we take your view and do not take serious action we will be in worse shape. What else do you suggest then if we do not undertake radical action to change the pattern of society? Nobody is going to sign onto literally reducing the population.


originally posted by: pl3bscheese
It just doesn't make any sense. "sustainable development" is not shown in these 8 key points, rather, mostly improved standards of living which pans out to another form of population control. Development requires resources. There is no sustaining of resources on this earth. They are being depleted. We take from reserves where the earth has deposited, and scatter it across the globe. We pollute the land, water, air, soil... We are in the process of wiping out species at a rate some 100-1000x faster than pre-agricultural revolution era, and it seems to be accelerating. We've wiped out 40% of the world's phytoplankton over the 2nd half of the 20th century. We have overfished the world over. The atmosphere has increased carbon dioxide by 40%.

How is any of this sustainable? Why do you think that throwing more resources at a problem (overpopulation) will magically make those consumers disappear? You think that bringing people up to middle class levels will offset the decline in population increase over the century? Really? There is no solution on this planet. We've already passed .85c, and if we stopped industry, that would rise perhaps another 1.1c... nearly breaching the dangerous 2c level (that is highly conservative estimate).

It's good efforts, that should have been realized a generation prior. We needed global action in the 20th century. Now, this is just a horrible joke. Something to give people false hope. I see people who really want to help, and yet they seem to not accept reality. These efforts MAY help out for up to a generation, and then we are to the exact same place, and perhaps even sooner, as I already stated raising higher consumers vs increasing population of poor may not make any sense overall.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

The indicator of $1.25 or 2.00 a day comes from the most poor countries, and what it takes in those to have basic caloric intake, clothes on your back etc. It's basically so one is not starving, in let's say Kenya or India.
There are a billion people living right now off that much. The goal is to reduce that so that less people are living off of subsistence levels.

I wasn't responding to you, but thank you for the reply, however this is from India media,

" The report of the UN World Food Programme is quite unflattering. More than 27 per cent of the world’s undernourished population lives in India, of whom 43 per cent....."
I left out all the rest you can Google it. Kenya ain't so good either, Google that.
I suppose you suppose a lot of things, because you ain't the boss. Funny thing is, I only mentioned Agenda 21 for the first time just the day before here in another thread.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You didn't really address my main issue. In order to stabilize population, you have to lessen the instinct to procreate so much, which comes from not perceiving the environmental terrain as too hostile (though not extremely, as this actually shuts off procreation entirely). The way you do this is by increasing standards of living in developing countries. You can see this in China right now, where they are now surpassing the US as the number 1 producer of GHG emissions. They have a rising poor to middle class in the hundreds of millions.

If you do this same thing, in India, in parts of Africa, in part of South America... you have more consumers... more resource depletion, and destruction of habitat... and you're believing that this offsets the problem of out of control poor people reproducing like bunny rabbits, yet they consume so much less... see what I'm getting at?

We can't kinda sorta, but not really address climate change next decade. We've passed the window of opportunity to continue civilization through the century without employing exotic technologies that currently do not exist. We have to R & D how to contain, trap, utilize the methane which is bubbling out the arctic ASAP to avoid perhaps even a runaway event... the Earth going the way of Venus. The models that the UN uses, are likely way behind the actual science, which is rapidly evolving with new data-points. We don't properly take into consideration the various positive feedback loops. It's freaking game over, man.

What do we do? What I perceive already has been done. Tens of trillions of dollars has been funneled into the shadow banking system in the last 6 years. What is going on there? The only thing that makes sense to me, is that this UN business is a last resort for affairs on the Earth, while an agenda has been set to push for exotic technologies that will get us to a new Earth. Only reasonable thing to do at this point. You try to keep civilization afloat here long enough to prolong our chances to find this new Earth, and develop the necessary technologies to get a chunk of us off the planet. Why keep it dark? Necessity. We're not all getting a ticket off planet. There was a hijacking of the economic system back in 2008, and now it's balls to the walls racing against the clock to keep everything duck taped together.

This Guy has a decent summary of what I see on the climate front. I'm not trying to stop you from anything, I just don't think it's possible to have "sustainable development" on this planet. We're in the process of irreversibly screwing up this planet as a habitable place for the species. It's time to take our chances out in the stars. Try once more.
edit on 25-7-2014 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Hi, there. I, too, have worked — always on contract — for UN agencies: UNAIDS, UNICEF and UNDP. I agree with the general tenor of your post, though my experiences with UNICEF have been uniformly bad; it seems to be full of selfish, self-serving career hacks who care far more about their own advancement than about helping children. It was good to work with UNDP and UNAIDS; the latter, in particular, has done great work around the world.

However, when it comes to effectiveness, I rate some European bilateral cooperation agencies far higher than the UN ones.

But you will never convince paranoid American right-wingers that the UN is benign or toothless. Frankly, it's not worth the effort: these people are completely out of touch with reality. One of the reasons the UN is toothless is that it gets so little support or funding from the world's greatest power. And that is entirely the fault of people who think 'freedom' means being able to own guns, befoul the world with their ordure and use violence to impose 'democracy' on people who neither want it nor are ready for it.

All the same, your thread deserves a flag and some stars for providing useful reference material to be linked to by others, and I've given you some.



edit on 25/7/14 by Astyanax because: of ordure.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Reply to xuenchen


Is there a list of verifiable accomplishments ?

Yes.


edit on 25/7/14 by Astyanax because: a malformed URL.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
Reply to xuenchen


Is there a list of verifiable accomplishments ?

Yes.



Not giving details like costs, who pays, contractors etc. etc.

Doesn't verify anything.

How can such a list of "accomplishments" be so lacking in details ?

Makes people wonder. Very suspicious.

Just like the "Oil for Food" scams headed by the international pirate and bandit Kofi Annan.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

You make a valid point, but what are the alternatives? Forcibly separate the rich world from the goodies it has grabbed? Not possible, they are well defended by guns and self-serving laws designed to protect private property. Persuade people of xuenchen's political persuasion to consume less and treat the planet responsibly? They'd sooner die. Attempt a mass cull of the human race? You first.

The MDGs are the best we can do. We're like doctors at a battlefield hospital, doing the best we can while the shells keep falling and the casualties keep pouring in. All we can do is try to keep people from starving, from torturing and mutilating each other, from dying of preventable diseases, as best we can.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

True Conservatives only "consume" what is necessary and without government interferences and totalitarian authoritarian big money agendas.

Many people believe the Left-Wing malarkey definitions that usually describe themselves.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Not giving details like costs, who pays, contractors etc. etc.

Every UN agency publishes a financial report in which such matters are detailed. They are public documents. Here's one.

If you want a finer level of detail than that, you will have to visit individual programme offices.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I am neither a left-winger nor a right-winger. Socialism is stupid. But the politics you support are loathsome.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to go and take a shower.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Thank You.

I will read over that report.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: xuenchen

I am neither a left-winger nor a right-winger. Socialism is stupid. But the politics you support are loathsome.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to go and take a shower.



Now I'm supposed to believe everything I hear about Agenda21.

Great attitude there.

Great support tactic.





top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join