Votre attention est correctement sur l'engagement de citoyen. Dans cet âge de migration massive avec le nombre record de réfugiés, comment incluons-nous des voix noncitzen? Comme des noncitoyens ils n'ont pas de droits de vote, par exemple. Il y a des institutions multinationales et des groupes de pression cet avocat pour le compte des noncitoyens. Je pense qu'il serait utile de faire entendre des voix de migrants directement. Les politiciens caractérisent des motivations de migrants et le caractère pour faire appel leurs partisans. Je crois que c'est une question pour beaucoup de pays.
A wonderful trilogy: morality or ehtics, culture and diversity!
Noticed that your latest addition could squarely fit into the purpose for the discussion of either “What Unites Us?” or “What Brings Us Together?” ------ "MIT's research findings show that there may be strong cross-cultural differences in moral values around the world..." Figuretively speaking, given a piece of palm-size soil anywhere on the planet, seeds (of grass or crop) will shoot out buds but the blades will not grow equally tall. This is a natural phenomenon. Anything as the product of the human intelligence follows the same path. Diversity is innate with a trait of spontaneousness while standardization is man-made and appears later in the show for a purpose. I believe optimal result through balancing is the key. Hence, the issue before us is who will be the qualified presiding judge and how he or she will rule, particularly on what convincing grounds, and critically who will be tasked to enforce the ruling. I believe the question is open for discussion.
A Perfect Case Scenario of An Analogue World Versus the Era of Digitalisation
Plastic pollution is not new in "the analogue world". However, plastic pollution in the digitalised era is not only new but also with a devastating consequence, almost to the point of no-return. E-commerce is currently an global trend, with an impact never seen before, and on-line shopping is an exciting and new mode of living. As a leading country of e-commerce, China is producing unprecedented quantity of plastic waste, notably from the packing materials, daily. The problem is not just confined to a specific geographical location, but rather worldwide. Such a pollution seems unstoppable both in scale and depth due to its momentum built over past few decades. All the major players, countries, international organizations and the businesses alike should face this problem seriously before it is too late because of the very nature of global interdependency and connectivity in terms of eco-system. An earlier study estimated that there would be more plastic than fish in the oceans in 2050 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35562253). Also, if unrestrained, microplastics would penetrate even deeper into our body (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics). So, collective efforts are called to deal with the problem, both on the policy making level and the pragmatic level. There is a twist that China was the largest plastic waste importer until last year and its ban on importing foreign plastic wastes necessates a new outlet for waste disposal, after all, no business as usual any more. Therefore new approaches and strategies should be developed in handling the issue.
No doubt, the oceans have already had enough as a dumping place!
With regard to the very wording of "What Unites Us", I believe there must be some better ways to express the very idea------because a singular form is used here instead of a plural one. I believe the significance is not only limited to the linguistic expression. I have the following three reasons.
First, the influence of OECD is widely spread, not just confined to its member countries. English is not my mother tongue, and not the official language for some OECD member countries as well. The very wording gives the impression that only one dominant force is out there dominating the landscape and dictating the course of direction and it is supposed to be our job now to figure out the ONE, describe the ONE and eventually get together around the ONE. (To this part, the credit should go to late Professor Edward W. Said, his sense of "Us" versus "the Other", inclusive versus exclusive.)
Second, the notion of diversity is important and can never be overemphasized. Even though structurally the U.S. is seating on the very top of the pyramid economically, financially, militarily, and so on, yet its promulgated policies are the outcome of a balanced approach presumably having brought under consideration all the relevant factors and elements (under the catch-all term of diversity), such as the rivaling EU, rising China and confronting Russia. After all, In Varietate Concordia. So, diversity matters.
Third, it should be the natural continuation of last year's theme, Bridging Divides. Since there are many forces that divided us, as in 2017, there must be more than one force to unite us in 2018, a sort of synergy of a united front. A wall is made up with bricks, and in order to tear down the wall, we need do it brick by brick, eventually all the bricks, with collective efforts against an accumulation of stuffs------a game of to do and undo. I believe that is the reason why we are here to discuss the process and figure out how.
Recent Comments
Votre attention est correctement sur l'engagement de citoyen. Dans cet âge de migration massive avec le nombre record de réfugiés, comment incluons-nous des voix noncitzen? Comme des noncitoyens ils n'ont pas de droits de vote, par exemple. Il y a des institutions multinationales et des groupes de pression cet avocat pour le compte des noncitoyens. Je pense qu'il serait utile de faire entendre des voix de migrants directement. Les politiciens caractérisent des motivations de migrants et le caractère pour faire appel leurs partisans. Je crois que c'est une question pour beaucoup de pays.
D'accord.
A wonderful trilogy: morality or ehtics, culture and diversity!
Noticed that your latest addition could squarely fit into the purpose for the discussion of either “What Unites Us?” or “What Brings Us Together?” ------ "MIT's research findings show that there may be strong cross-cultural differences in moral values around the world..." Figuretively speaking, given a piece of palm-size soil anywhere on the planet, seeds (of grass or crop) will shoot out buds but the blades will not grow equally tall. This is a natural phenomenon. Anything as the product of the human intelligence follows the same path. Diversity is innate with a trait of spontaneousness while standardization is man-made and appears later in the show for a purpose. I believe optimal result through balancing is the key. Hence, the issue before us is who will be the qualified presiding judge and how he or she will rule, particularly on what convincing grounds, and critically who will be tasked to enforce the ruling. I believe the question is open for discussion.
A Perfect Case Scenario of An Analogue World Versus the Era of Digitalisation
Plastic pollution is not new in "the analogue world". However, plastic pollution in the digitalised era is not only new but also with a devastating consequence, almost to the point of no-return. E-commerce is
currently an global trend, with an impact never seen before, and on-line shopping is an exciting and new mode of living. As a leading country of e-commerce, China is producing unprecedented quantity of plastic waste, notably from the packing materials, daily. The problem is not just confined to a specific geographical location, but rather worldwide. Such a pollution seems unstoppable both in scale and depth due to its momentum built over past few decades. All the major players, countries, international organizations and the businesses alike should face this problem seriously before it is too late because of the very nature of global interdependency and connectivity in terms of eco-system. An earlier study estimated that there would be more plastic than fish in the oceans in 2050 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35562253). Also, if unrestrained, microplastics would penetrate even deeper into our body (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics). So, collective efforts are called to deal with the problem, both on the policy making level and the pragmatic level. There is a twist that China was the largest plastic waste importer until last year and its ban on importing foreign plastic wastes necessates a new outlet for waste disposal, after all, no business as usual any more. Therefore new approaches and strategies should be developed in handling the issue.
No doubt, the oceans have already had enough as a dumping place!
With regard to the very wording of "What Unites Us", I believe there must be some better ways to express the very idea------because a singular form is used here instead of a plural one. I believe the significance is not only limited to the linguistic expression. I have the following three reasons.
First, the influence of OECD is widely spread, not just confined to its member countries. English is not my mother tongue, and not the official language for some OECD member countries as well. The very wording gives the impression that only one dominant force is out there dominating the landscape and dictating the course of direction and it is supposed to be our job now to figure out the ONE, describe the ONE and eventually get together around the ONE. (To this part, the credit should go to late Professor Edward W. Said, his sense of "Us" versus "the Other", inclusive versus exclusive.)
Second, the notion of diversity is important and can never be overemphasized. Even though structurally the U.S. is seating on the very top of the pyramid economically, financially, militarily, and so on, yet its promulgated policies are the outcome of a balanced approach presumably having brought under consideration all the relevant factors and elements (under the catch-all term of diversity), such as the rivaling EU, rising China and confronting Russia. After all, In Varietate Concordia. So, diversity matters.
Third, it should be the natural continuation of last year's theme, Bridging Divides. Since there are many forces that divided us, as in 2017, there must be more than one force to unite us in 2018, a sort of synergy of a united front. A wall is made up with bricks, and in order to tear down the wall, we need do it brick by brick, eventually all the bricks, with collective efforts against an accumulation of stuffs------a game of to do and undo. I believe that is the reason why we are here to discuss the process and figure out how.
Thank you.