Author Topic: Anti-environmentalism.  (Read 12539 times)

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77698
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #30 on: December 09, 2010, 04:14:46 am »
Kinda why I asked if you knew anything about him. Paranoid delusional fraying under increased horrible pressures and all that.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


ńͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞

  • sea monstropode
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 9232
  • the incorrect form of social currency
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2011, 12:14:51 pm »
I've been thinking about this rant for a while, rereading it, typing out a lot of thoughts about it, but not posting any.

You bring up some great points. Most things that I completely agree with, however it's been difficult to identify exactly where I disagree.

I think I've got it.

It seems to me that the increasing awareness that we should be doing something to benefit the environment is a good thing, even if this manifests itself in relatively meaningless things like spending millions of dollars building bike lanes or buying recycled toilet paper.

It means that people are closer than ever to realizing the hideous truths about the environment. They know things are not good and that they are complicit, which is why they will buy things even if they are only the slightest bit "green." And they're doing this in droves.

Can anyone point to a time in history that people across the world had so much concern for what we're doing to the environment? A time where businesses were scrambling to find a way to make their business "green?"

Sure it's being negated by population increases and rampant consumerism, but the awareness that we need to do things to stop harming the environment is growing. And that awareness is fertile ground for the kind of major institutional changes that Nixon enacted.

If the desire for ______ is genuine and you get tricked into buying a low quality fake you'll get pissed off if you realize you've been scammed and be more careful in your next attempt to acquire this thing. The same is true with the greenwashing of the world that is occuring right now. People are coming to the same conclusions as you, Kai—that we probably can't buy our way out of this mess and that major shifts from the top down are required.

But, when you write off anyone who identifies as an environmentalist because you're convinced they're, "nothing more than a bunch of political hacks with half assed ideas and no real objectives or means for change, a bunch of hypocritical poseurs," you may never find out that you were flat out wrong and can continue to be needlessly alienated from allies and collaborators.

However, we're all weaker because of that.
P E R   A S P E R A   A D   A S T R A

Triple Zero

  • DO NOT ABUSE EXCEPT FOR URGENT FURNITURE MOVING EMERGENCIES
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 25403
  • Horrible and Sexy Queen of Cheese
    • View Profile
    • Random BIP
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2011, 08:21:41 pm »
Quote from: Regret
Rah!

I actually like environmentalists if they are willing to listen to the horrible truth.
Sadly, most are human and therefore incapable of or unwilling to accept the horrible truths that Kai wrote so eloquently aggressive.

Kai said in the OP the real environmental progress was made in the 70s, and then sort of stopped. Was the Netherlands late to the party, you think? Cause I remember the environment being real big in the 80s and sort of slipping from public eye halfway the 90s ... ? Though of course I wasn't alive in the 70s.

Quote from: RWHN
Until we figure that one out, it's as Kai says, this other stuff is trivial, feel-good nonsense.  Imagine if all the people who spent so much time recycling and buying organic, instead, put all of that energy into writing Congressmen and testifying at hearings and protesting our continuing addiction to fossil fuels.

Completely agree, except all that consumer-environmentalist recycling and buying organic doesn't really cost them that much time or energy. That's the entire point, why still so many people do it. If you make enough money, buying organic food is just as easy as buying normal food. As for recycling, again the most effort is reserving the extra storage space, not the habit of putting your trash into separate bins.
Compare that to political activism, that actually requires people to think, and spend real effort and energy.

Quote from: Kai
If we want to go for efficiency, I've got the perfect solution. However, it's very unlikely to happen given how unpopular it is, even on this forum. So I'm not even going to say it.

Is it something to do with the ratio between the numbers 11 and 12? :)

Quote from: Kai
Quote from: Hovercat
This is where I kiiiiind of disagree. Yes, the environmental movement is essentially slacktivism, but little things do add up and buying organic, using less plastic and recycling what you do use are useful things. It just shouldn't be all you do, imo.

Useful =/= the efficient way to stability. Or even A way.

I neglected to read a prior post you made, which more or less covered my thoughts.  :oops: My bad. So feel free to ignore that part of the post...

If by "prior post" you mean the OP ... Because it was pretty much exactly the point of his thread.



However, NET does bring some interesting thoughts ..

It seems to me that the increasing awareness that we should be doing something to benefit the environment is a good thing, even if this manifests itself in relatively meaningless things like spending millions of dollars building bike lanes or buying recycled toilet paper.

Good point. While it's not immediately apparent, because Kai is absolutely right that consumer-environmentalism doesn't exactly "puts any sods to the dyke" [as we say in Dutch], small acts of environmentalism does put the environment in the minds and hearts of the public.

Think for example kids at schools doing environment projects, maybe they plant a couple of trees (at National Tree-planting Day), sure it doesn't really help the global environmental apocalypse we're facing, but it does teach kids about the environment, which is a step in the direction of those kids possibly growing up to become politically active about it and do make a real difference (or at least make a real attempt at making a real difference).

Now one may think, "yeah okay, for kids, this is important". But why not for adults? Apparently they need it, because they have the means, but they're still not doing much about it. (And uh neither am I, it seems)

Reading and hearing on the news about it is one thing, but actually doing something, even if it's a meaningless token gesture, also anchors environmental awareness in a really powerful way.

However, getting back to the point in Kai's OP, where it goes wrong is when that becomes a kind of cargo-cult. And that's why I like the OP, a lot, because it's a cold hard reminder of how recycling your stuff and buying organic food is NOT going to save the world, and it NEEDS saving, and nobody wants to hear it and I dunno maybe it helps if we buy MORE energy-saving lightbulbs?! NO!!

Yes Kai, I'm going to echo Regret's RAHHH! about this.

This is important.

But what is also important is that those consumer environmentalists you despise so much, they may have the wrong ideas in their minds, but a lot of them do have the right idea in their hearts. So instead of getting pissed off at them for being schmucks, and writing them off as the next tribe of useless gibbering monkeys, these are people that already care about the environment.

And if you tell them they're doing it wrong, that not even if "everybody starts doing it" we don't have a remote chance of saving this planet, and if you manage to get in their face, and perhaps piss them off in just the right way, they might get MAD in the right way, maybe drop their organic sacraments, and start thinking about better solutions, about bigger solutions.

Quote from: NET
If the desire for ______ is genuine and you get tricked into buying a low quality fake you'll get pissed off if you realize you've been scammed and be more careful in your next attempt to acquire this thing. The same is true with the greenwashing of the world that is occuring right now.

THIS. Don't make those environmentalists pissed off because you disagree with them, make them pissed off because they bought into a low quality fake.




Anyway, great thread, great discussion.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Kai

  • A flea circus and
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 8917
  • Richard Feynman fangirl.
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2011, 09:19:32 pm »
Quote
Is it something to do with the ratio between the numbers 11 and 12?

No, but it does have to do with mandatory birth control and other birth limiting methods.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Fujikoma

  • Potato God
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
  • Pheremone Octopi of Spiked Intrusion
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2011, 12:35:48 pm »
There are a lot of problems that come with such programs. Is it really the lesser evil?

Kai

  • A flea circus and
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 8917
  • Richard Feynman fangirl.
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #35 on: January 07, 2011, 01:38:09 am »
There are a lot of problems that come with such programs. Is it really the lesser evil?

There are a lot of problems that come with jumping our carrying capacity.

Anyway, this is why I didn't want to bring it up.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Pope Pixie Pickle

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4758
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2011, 05:12:29 pm »
the easiest way to reduce population is to educate women. those who getinto higher education are more inclined to have careers and have less kids.
"YOU SAY CULTURAL MARXISM LIKE IT'S A BAD THING"

Telarus

  • Fictional Ego
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 6600
  • Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2011, 06:02:55 pm »
Telarus, KSC,
.__.  Keeper of the Contradictory Cephalopod, Zenarchist Swordsman,
(0o)  Tender to the Edible Zen Garden, Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times,
/||\   Episkopos of the Amorphous Dreams Cabal

Join the Doll Underground! Experience the Phantasmagorical Safari!

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90457
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2011, 06:52:18 pm »
There are a lot of problems that come with such programs. Is it really the lesser evil?

Let's see...Birth control/limiting vs well, DROWNING IN OUR OWN SHIT?

No, that's too may problems.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11433
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2011, 07:29:00 pm »
I am unconvinced that overpopulation is the actual problem.

Abuse of resources? Sure. Poor management of resources? Absolutely.

We waste land, we waste food, we waste water, we waste energy. The US itself sucks up far more than it needs to to support its population.

Telling people to have fewer babies will not fix greed and indolence. Correcting waste and greed seems like a far more sustainable and useful angle than simply trying to cut off baby production.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Epimetheus

  • Young, dumb, and stupid.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1826
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2011, 07:31:08 pm »
Correcting waste and greed

Is that possible? Are we not beyond repair?
POST-SINGULARITY POCKET ORGASM TOAD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 63245
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2011, 07:36:13 pm »
I am unconvinced that overpopulation is the actual problem.

Abuse of resources? Sure. Poor management of resources? Absolutely.

We waste land, we waste food, we waste water, we waste energy. The US itself sucks up far more than it needs to to support its population.

Telling people to have fewer babies will not fix greed and indolence. Correcting waste and greed seems like a far more sustainable and useful angle than simply trying to cut off baby production.

It's not yet, on a global scale, but the thing about population growth is that it is exponential, therefore if you wait until it is a problem it is already too late.  The latest UN figures suggest the world could probably support near 10 billion with current levels of poverty/resource distribution.

But as you say, management is at least as much of an issue (dunno if you read my posts in the thread about plastic bags, which then turned into a thread about smoking, which somehow turned into a thread about Africa, but they're in there somewhere)

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 5848
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2011, 09:29:30 pm »
I am unconvinced that overpopulation is the actual problem.

Abuse of resources? Sure. Poor management of resources? Absolutely.

We waste land, we waste food, we waste water, we waste energy. The US itself sucks up far more than it needs to to support its population.

Telling people to have fewer babies will not fix greed and indolence. Correcting waste and greed seems like a far more sustainable and useful angle than simply trying to cut off baby production.

It's not yet, on a global scale, but the thing about population growth is that it is exponential, therefore if you wait until it is a problem it is already too late.  The latest UN figures suggest the world could probably support near 10 billion with current levels of poverty/resource distribution.

But as you say, management is at least as much of an issue (dunno if you read my posts in the thread about plastic bags, which then turned into a thread about smoking, which somehow turned into a thread about Africa, but they're in there somewhere)

Most of the projections I've seen say that we'll level off at 9-11 billion.  so support of 10 billion is workable.

Of course, that support of 10 billion probably assumes that we'll have petroleum based fertilizers, which we won't around the time the population levels off...
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90457
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2011, 09:45:45 pm »
I am unconvinced that overpopulation is the actual problem.

Abuse of resources? Sure. Poor management of resources? Absolutely.

We waste land, we waste food, we waste water, we waste energy. The US itself sucks up far more than it needs to to support its population.

Telling people to have fewer babies will not fix greed and indolence. Correcting waste and greed seems like a far more sustainable and useful angle than simply trying to cut off baby production.

It's not yet, on a global scale, but the thing about population growth is that it is exponential, therefore if you wait until it is a problem it is already too late.  The latest UN figures suggest the world could probably support near 10 billion with current levels of poverty/resource distribution.

But as you say, management is at least as much of an issue (dunno if you read my posts in the thread about plastic bags, which then turned into a thread about smoking, which somehow turned into a thread about Africa, but they're in there somewhere)

Most of the projections I've seen say that we'll level off at 9-11 billion.  so support of 10 billion is workable.

Of course, that support of 10 billion probably assumes that we'll have petroleum based fertilizers, which we won't around the time the population levels off...

The estimates I've read say that the Earth at present has a sustainable carrying capacity of about 2 billion people.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77698
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Anti-environmentalism.
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2011, 09:50:38 pm »
I am unconvinced that overpopulation is the actual problem.

Abuse of resources? Sure. Poor management of resources? Absolutely.

We waste land, we waste food, we waste water, we waste energy. The US itself sucks up far more than it needs to to support its population.

Telling people to have fewer babies will not fix greed and indolence. Correcting waste and greed seems like a far more sustainable and useful angle than simply trying to cut off baby production.

Is there any particular reason that you think crowding out all other life on this planet and living cheek-to-cheek has an advantage over simply breeding less?
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”