Tree-hugging destroying the environment
POSTED BY: Hardware
UPDATED: Sunday, June 26, 2011 13:18
VIEWED: 4151
PAGE 2 of 5
Byte is right. This cannot be a partisan issue. The survival of the Earth depends upon the survival of the Earth, which requires the support of 99% of the people until someone makes it into a partisan issue; then, it can have, at maximum, the support of 50% of the people.
Hardware has a point, the ineffective tactics of the past have misdirected the efforts of the concerned, but we can't solve that by pointing the finger in the other direction either.
One species, one planet, no second chances. Let's not fuck it up by fighting amongst ourselves.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dude, better sources, better arguments.
That one had FAIL written *all* over it from the get-go.
Have you never pondered like, negotiating with the hippies instead of flaming them, duuuude ?
Yeah I know there's wild-eyed idealists who won't listen to reason amongst them, but that's *any* ideology, and if you wish to use cherry picking a tiny minority and their behavior as a pathetic excuse for not being reasonable, if all you really want is to "push yours on them", is it any wonder you wind up so firmly rejected ?
Don't get mad, get PRAGMATIC, discuss, negotiate, instead of pontificating - give it a try sometime.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
His actual examples were a planned economy and free market economy. But I guess you can't open your mind to examine an idea that is immediately antithetical to your world view.
Thing is, if I can show you a "planned economy" that is cleaner than ours, and a "free market economy" that is dirtier than China's, can YOU open your mind to examine an idea that is antithetical to YOUR world view?
Your argument - and the author's - seems to hinge around the idea that a nation's economic system dictates their environmental policies. I think a few people here disagree with so simplistic a generalization.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:Quote:
Among rampart right winged fundamentalists, there is a common sentiment that environmentalism is inherently evil and will result in the destruction of our way of life. I’ve argued with some of these right winged nut jobs before, and tried to explain to them that countries with good environmenalist policies (such as the Sweden, Finland and Germany) typically have much stronger or as strong economies then countries such as the US, Australia and Singapore which have a shocking record when it comes to giving a stuff about the environment. Apparently, their cliche riddled brains are immune to reason, because they can only cope with black and white arguments even though last time I checked the world was quite technicolour. The fact of the matter is, environmental policies do not pose significant threat to the capitalist system; but in fact, may actual benefit our economy in the long run....
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
Fixed it for you.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Kwicko said it quicker. And better.
MAGON'S- BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Hardware, there is only one point that a person could reasonably make for capitalism being beneficial for the environment, and he didn't even come close to making it.
If you're interested, I'll tell you what it is. just to be the devil's advocate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The question Sig, is can you show me an industrial planned economy with a better environment?
The author demonstrated an example of when our own government supplanted the role of private industry in making dams and how badly that affected the environment. Can you cite a counter-example?
I'm hearing a lot of automatic rejection from the usual suspects. But, as usual, there's no supporting evidence being offered.
Total weaksauce. You all get a zero for the week.
And to Kwicko and Sig, in response to your earlier, knee-jerk refuting of the article...
Quote:
...I’m certainly not trying to argue that governments shouldn’t act to improve environmental quality. There are many examples of our government making appropriate environmental policies, such as enacting pollution taxes. But when government attempts to side-step the free market to provide specific solutions to environmental and natural resource problems, unintended adverse consequences often result. One obvious example of this is the energy crisis in the 1970’s...
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH
Problem is, Hardware, you and yours are every bit as guilty of this, both "sides" have a proven history of it - and initially you came across as pontificating, with a tremendously biased and non-credible source, which as mentioned, isn't reallllly the best way to start an honest discussion, either it reframes the debate in a way that winds up reduced quickly to absurdities, or it provokes sufficient hostility to make rational discussion thereafter difficult, at best.
Comments like that don't help matters neither, you can't shake hands with a balled fist, yanno ?
All that said, the question is sustainability and long term gain versus slash-n-burn short term exploitation - s'funny, one of the better arguments I heard in that regard was seeing that awful ten commandments flick way back in my callow youth...
Quote:
A city is made of brick, Pharaoh. The strong make many. The weak make few. The dead make none. So much for accusations.
Even more hilarious is that it seems to link back to "Pragmatic Villainry", which come to think of it, that probably was.
There was also a bolts of silk argument with ole Gengis Khan relative to that, wasn't there, tho I don't remember the exact quote offhand... still, THAT is a good starting point for pondering the balance between commercialism and environmentalism, I think, long term gain versus short term and the consequences of either.
I myself take the long view, not being a virtuous sort as a rule, patience is one well worth cultivating.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Comments like that don't help matters neither, you can't shake hands with a balled fist, yanno ?
Egzackly.
This author lost me with 'tree hugging hippies', and I wasn't prepared to read much further. If someone wants to discuss how environmentalism may impact on the economy negatively, go for it, but don't fill your argument with name calling and insults and I'll read it happily.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
The question Sig, is can you show me an industrial planned economy with a better environment?
The author demonstrated an example of when our own government supplanted the role of private industry in making dams and how badly that affected the environment. Can you cite a counter-example?
I'm hearing a lot of automatic rejection from the usual suspects. But, as usual, there's no supporting evidence being offered.
Total weaksauce. You all get a zero for the week.
And to Kwicko and Sig, in response to your earlier, knee-jerk refuting of the article...
"knee-jerk refuting"? Because I asked a couple questions?
THAT is some weak-ass sauce, hombre.
Quote:
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH
Apparently that holds true for cults, sects, and religions such as "free market" capitalists, corporatists, plutocrats, and the like as well.
Kinda easy to see why you don't get more allies around here.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Very interesting discussion. From reading down the thread, it appears to me as if YOU are the one doing knee-jerk stuff, Hardware, and either not reading what people have written, or dismissing it out of hand.Quote:
is a valid statement making a valid point. Only one, but not “knee-jerk”; rather, true.
During America's and Britain's industrial development the environment was a toilet, rivaling anything you would have found in developing Russia or China.Quote:
Another valid point, which is also true.
Anytime there is a paradigm shift in industry and development, no matter what socio-economic system is in play, pollution always drastically increases.Quote:
Also true, at least In part. Industries have mostly been dragged into clean policy, some have been educated into it, some actually care. But there’s no question in my mind that it’s at least in part due to the FREEDOM part of free-market that HAS allowed people to speak up and demand change, it’s not what the industries would necessarily do on their own. Providing environmentally-viable ANYTHING is bound to lessen short-term profits; it’s only reasonable that enterprise wouldn’t put a lot of focus on anything that lessens the bottom line. SOME force or other needs to bring it about.
because the tree hugging hippies are able to speak their minds in the "free" countries. I guarantee, western industries have been dragged kicking and screaming into every bit of clean policy they have
US and Japan = free enterprise; China and Russia = centrally-planned economies. Okay, but I don’t think anyone but left-wing extremists wants “centrally-planned economies”, it’s a false concept. US and Japan aren’t on the opposite side of centrally-planned economies, while China and Russia are about as close to true centrally-planned economies as I know of currently. You have to compare both sides, not one extreme and two other moderates. Quote:
Everyone who’s said that, and that both sides share a fair portion of the blame, is correct. It’s pure partisanship, not to mention prejudice, the way your quote is written, and pretty much means nothing.
This cannot be a partisan i
I think you’d have to show how the environment has been improved or kept healthy BY free enterprise; in other words leaving out legal, public and governmental (and any other non-free-enterprise) pressures, to make a relevant point.Quote:
That’s it in a nutshell. The argument could be made much more viable; from what I read, it sounds like this is written pretty much like Mark Morford does (only seriously...); utilizing pejoratives, slurs, stereotypes, etc. Does not make for communication. You offend anyone who believes even SLIGHTLY differently from the author right off the bat, the way it is apparently written.
Dude, better sources, better argumentsQuote:
Apparently that’s what you think you’re hearing, but if you paid attention, rather than just expecting flames and “hearing” them despite what’s actually being said, you’d find some perfectly reasonable arguments in there along with the “he’s an idiot” stuff.
I'm hearing a lot of automatic rejection from the usual suspects. But, as usual, there's no supporting evidence being offered.
Total weaksauce. You all get a zero for the week.Quote:
From what I heard of that article, it sounds like this pretty much describes the author’s intent: to demonize one particular group of “heretics”, and I agree that, just from what I see here, free-enterprise has just as avid and cultish a following as environmentalists. We’re not all tree-hugging hippies; I happen to be a tree-LOVING hippie, but even I think the concept o
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME