Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Or Kill Me => Topic started by: Kai on December 06, 2010, 02:59:17 pm

Title: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Kai on December 06, 2010, 02:59:17 pm
Or,

Why I Hate the "Environmental Movement".


This may seem exactly the opposite of what you would expect of me, being a biologist. In fact, in the past I would have called myself an environmentalist of various sorts. And maybe, once upon a time, there was a good reason to do so.

The truth is, as the title may suggest, I despise the environmentalist movement. These days, whenever I hear a cry of "save the earth!" or "environment" or various other passwords, I step away. And the simple reason is this: the environmental movement is 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. It's an excuse for people to do minor inconveniences that makes them feel self righteous so they can feel okay about the impending disaster, the "it's not my fault, I recycle!" crowd, the "I drive a hybrid" crowd, the "I cycle to work" crowd.

The clean air and clean water acts of the 70s were some truly monumental pieces of legislation. Rivers in this country no longer burn and you can actually eat fish out of Lake Eire now. Industries were required to filter their waste, both gaseous and aqueous. We have overall benefited immensely.

And then, it faltered. Somehow, doing something became equated with putting recycling out to the curb every Tuesday and buying organic produce. Human morality is a balancing act of canceling good versus bad. You can easily see this with people who desperately need to loose weight and explain having a doughnut with "I walked a couple blocks this morning". The total effect is zero progress.

If the whole point of such "environmental" actions is to create a sustainable human society, these little things that people do are overall meaningless and pointless in the grand scheme. Recycling makes little difference if West Virginia is still going to have it's mountain tops stripped into a heavy metal wasteland. Buying organic makes no difference when population still continues to shoot up (now nearing 7 billion) requiring more and more land for agriculture which will inevitably become desert. Riding a bike to work, while a nice healthy activity, does nothing to counteract the millions of drivers still on the roads and the immense amount of methane released by cattle flatulence. And the worst one, PLANTING a /TREE/ does absolutely nothing about the ongoing biodiversity crisis and the continuous slash and burn clear cutting of forestland in the tropics, where millions of species are facing extinction before I as a biologist even has time to describe them.

So fuck Earth Day, fuck organic farming, and fuck bike lanes. And for fuck sake, FUCK environmentalism, because it doesn't do shit. It's all just hypocritical nonsense.

Me, I'm still looking for answers, because sure as hell none of the above are addressing the larger problems.

Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on December 06, 2010, 03:08:30 pm
:mittens:

People don't like environmentalists anyway. The TV box has given me clues that environmentalists are dirty hippie Democrats who worship Al Gore.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Reginald Ret on December 06, 2010, 03:13:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: AFK on December 06, 2010, 03:15:54 pm
It's all about Energy.  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.  Imagine if THEY were at town halls shouting for clean energy technologies and policies.  

But we are so easily placated by token gestures that are really easy to do.  Not enough heavy-lifters.  
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Kai on December 06, 2010, 03:41:53 pm
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.

Also, protesting and mailing congressthings can be considered token gestures under most circumstances.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: AFK on December 06, 2010, 03:50:49 pm
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.

Also, protesting and mailing congressthings can be considered token gestures under most circumstances.

At current levels, yes.  But look at how the Tea Party nuts were able to take control of the national agenda by going to town halls and hollering at people.

I'm saying that if environmentally-minded people could harness that kind of civic energy, perhaps something would be done, or at least, there would be some meaningful national discussion. 

I don't think it is likely to happen, mind you. 

Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: LMNO on December 06, 2010, 04:01:18 pm
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.

Also, protesting and mailing congressthings can be considered token gestures under most circumstances.

Nuclear, or Soylent Green?
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Hoopla! on December 06, 2010, 04:12:56 pm
I completely agree Kai. 

I, for one, do support nuclear energy.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on December 06, 2010, 04:16:02 pm
I'm not opposed to nuclear either. Granted we'd still have to end up coming up with something else eventually, since that's also a finite resource.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Kai on December 06, 2010, 07:12:53 pm
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.

Also, protesting and mailing congressthings can be considered token gestures under most circumstances.

Nuclear, or Soylent Green?

Neither. But it's definitely something we've argued about here before, so I'll stay my tongue.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on December 06, 2010, 07:16:43 pm
fucking :mittens: Kai.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Jasper on December 06, 2010, 07:17:02 pm
I had an argument with Kai once about the idea he's not mentioning.

I'm less opposed to this idea than I once was.

Just saying, in case he feels like mentioning it ITT.

Cool rant.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2010, 09:31:05 pm
and you can actually eat fish out of Lake Eire now.

I wouldn't.  Not anymore.  Things changed in 2003/2004.  They're busy dumping any old shit back in Erie.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Kai on December 06, 2010, 09:40:18 pm
and you can actually eat fish out of Lake Eire now.

I wouldn't.  Not anymore.  Things changed in 2003/2004.  They're busy dumping any old shit back in Erie.

Great.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2010, 09:48:21 pm
and you can actually eat fish out of Lake Eire now.

I wouldn't.  Not anymore.  Things changed in 2003/2004.  They're busy dumping any old shit back in Erie.

Great.

Nixon fixed shit.

Bush decided to fix it betterer.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 06, 2010, 10:01:40 pm
:mittens: This is something about "environmentalism" and the "sustainability movement" that really bothers me. People use certain easy outs as a way to pretend they're not vast resource-sucking black holes of destruction. Buying organic convenience foods in recycled packages. Driving Priuses. One aging environmentalist hippie we met with a couple weeks ago talks about your "environmental handprint" as opposed to your "environmental footprint"... the idea that people should measure the good things they're doing for the environment instead of focusing on the bad. It wasn't my meeting, I was just along for the ride, so I refrained from saying "THIS IS DELUSIONAL BULLSHIT!"

There are things we CAN do to slightly reduce our individual footprints. Buying locally in bulk, avoiding prepackaged foods, avoiding driving, avoiding non-durable consumer goods, minimizing energy use, paying extra for wind power... All of these things can have a (fairly trivial) reduction in our overall impact. They are still worth doing, but the real problem is that industrial society is revoltingly consumptive, our entire economy is BASED on consumption, and we are so horrified at the idea that we  might have to pay a dollar more for something that we would rather turn our heads away from the environmental damage we're doing than actually examine it and take measures to prevent it. We CAN'T prevent it without our economy collapsing.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 06, 2010, 10:03:35 pm
and you can actually eat fish out of Lake Eire now.

I wouldn't.  Not anymore.  Things changed in 2003/2004.  They're busy dumping any old shit back in Erie.

Great.

Nixon fixed shit.

Bush decided to fix it betterer.

Nixon was the last great President.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Juana on December 06, 2010, 11:32:19 pm
Yep, even if he was a spoiled brat. All down hill from there. Regan destroyed the Republicans, the best thing Bush41 did (iirc) was puke on someone's lap...
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 07, 2010, 12:26:00 am
Yep, even if he was a spoiled brat. All down hill from there. Regan destroyed the Republicans, the best thing Bush41 did (iirc) was puke on someone's lap...

"Spoiled brat"? Do you know anything about him at all? He was a great progressive with impressive resolve and a remarkable willingness to throw his political career under a bus in order to do what he believed was right for the American people. He was a good President at a very bad time for the country, and was backed into an inescapable corner with the formation of the Federal Reserve, which he absolutely did not want, and I think it took a huge toll on his mental health.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Kai on December 07, 2010, 12:47:04 am
:mittens: This is something about "environmentalism" and the "sustainability movement" that really bothers me. People use certain easy outs as a way to pretend they're not vast resource-sucking black holes of destruction. Buying organic convenience foods in recycled packages. Driving Priuses. One aging environmentalist hippie we met with a couple weeks ago talks about your "environmental handprint" as opposed to your "environmental footprint"... the idea that people should measure the good things they're doing for the environment instead of focusing on the bad. It wasn't my meeting, I was just along for the ride, so I refrained from saying "THIS IS DELUSIONAL BULLSHIT!"

There are things we CAN do to slightly reduce our individual footprints. Buying locally in bulk, avoiding prepackaged foods, avoiding driving, avoiding non-durable consumer goods, minimizing energy use, paying extra for wind power... All of these things can have a (fairly trivial) reduction in our overall impact. They are still worth doing, but the real problem is that industrial society is revoltingly consumptive, our entire economy is BASED on consumption, and we are so horrified at the idea that we  might have to pay a dollar more for something that we would rather turn our heads away from the environmental damage we're doing than actually examine it and take measures to prevent it. We CAN'T prevent it without our economy collapsing.

And I want to make it clear, I'm NOT saying DON'T do the trivial things. If society was done right, we'd be doing the trivial things. We'd also be doing a hell of a lot of different shit, but we would still retain those parts that are trivial and token to our current crisis but just part of ordinary life in better times.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Richter on December 07, 2010, 12:58:07 am
Right on man.  People who would bitch about their "Carbon footprint" were in the same book as various flavors of "born again" in my consideration.  (Thankfully I haven't heard that BS, including the pedlding of "carbon offsets" in about a year.  Hope it dried up and blew away.)

"Environmentalism" turned into another industry that makes money of of making people feel guilty. 
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Cain on December 07, 2010, 01:22:51 am
"Environmentalism" as it currently stands is nothing more than a method for the upper middle classes to relieve their guilt about their consumption and lifestyles through token gestures of "being green" and act superior to lower socio-economic groups - who frequently cannot afford the lifestyle many self-proclaimed environmentalists have (eating organic food, gas-powered cars, attempting to be carbon neutral etc) yet, simply, by not having as much disposable income, probably do less damage to the environment in the long run.  It's not like children living in the slums in Mombasa are driving the demand for Congo cobalt resources used in most hi-tech pieces of equipment ,after all (not only causing environmental damage via horrendous mining practices, but also helping to fund the world's longest ongoing war, which causes more...you guessed it).  Its the idiots posting on Facebook about how we have to be "environmentally conscious" in one status update, and bragging about their iPhone in the next.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: The Johnny on December 08, 2010, 07:18:53 am

Its also very narcissistic to think that if i plant a tree and recycle, im gonna turn the tide in ecology's favor, while toxic waste from a single chemicals plant makes in an hour.

You cant make change at the individual scale, change has to be institutionalized.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Juana on December 08, 2010, 07:11:57 pm
Yep, even if he was a spoiled brat. All down hill from there. Regan destroyed the Republicans, the best thing Bush41 did (iirc) was puke on someone's lap...

"Spoiled brat"? Do you know anything about him at all? He was a great progressive with impressive resolve and a remarkable willingness to throw his political career under a bus in order to do what he believed was right for the American people. He was a good President at a very bad time for the country, and was backed into an inescapable corner with the formation of the Federal Reserve, which he absolutely did not want, and I think it took a huge toll on his mental health.
I was referring to his personality. I know what he did and I generally respect him for it, but he was bratty and a bit of a slimy bastard (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dirty_tricks#Watergate-era_dirty_tricks).



Its also very narcissistic to think that if i plant a tree and recycle, im gonna turn the tide in ecology's favor, while toxic waste from a single chemicals plant makes in an hour.

You cant make change at the individual scale, change has to be institutionalized.
This is where I kiiiiind of disagree. Yes, the environmental movement is essentially slacktivism (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Kai on December 09, 2010, 12:46:35 am
Yep, even if he was a spoiled brat. All down hill from there. Regan destroyed the Republicans, the best thing Bush41 did (iirc) was puke on someone's lap...

"Spoiled brat"? Do you know anything about him at all? He was a great progressive with impressive resolve and a remarkable willingness to throw his political career under a bus in order to do what he believed was right for the American people. He was a good President at a very bad time for the country, and was backed into an inescapable corner with the formation of the Federal Reserve, which he absolutely did not want, and I think it took a huge toll on his mental health.
I was referring to his personality. I know what he did and I generally respect him for it, but he was bratty and a bit of a slimy bastard (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dirty_tricks#Watergate-era_dirty_tricks).



Its also very narcissistic to think that if i plant a tree and recycle, im gonna turn the tide in ecology's favor, while toxic waste from a single chemicals plant makes in an hour.

You cant make change at the individual scale, change has to be institutionalized.
This is where I kiiiiind of disagree. Yes, the environmental movement is essentially slacktivism (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Juana on December 09, 2010, 02:35:33 am
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...
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 09, 2010, 03:18:44 am
Yep, even if he was a spoiled brat. All down hill from there. Regan destroyed the Republicans, the best thing Bush41 did (iirc) was puke on someone's lap...

"Spoiled brat"? Do you know anything about him at all? He was a great progressive with impressive resolve and a remarkable willingness to throw his political career under a bus in order to do what he believed was right for the American people. He was a good President at a very bad time for the country, and was backed into an inescapable corner with the formation of the Federal Reserve, which he absolutely did not want, and I think it took a huge toll on his mental health.
I was referring to his personality. I know what he did and I generally respect him for it, but he was bratty and a bit of a slimy bastard (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dirty_tricks#Watergate-era_dirty_tricks).



I didn't know you knew him personally. I'm impressed. Most of his contemporaries who knew him describe him as intense but shy, painfully insecure, and coping with public life through a rigidly-constructed persona. It sounds like you knew him well enough to see a different side of him, though, so I'll take your word for it.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Juana on December 09, 2010, 03:25:41 am
Yep, even if he was a spoiled brat. All down hill from there. Regan destroyed the Republicans, the best thing Bush41 did (iirc) was puke on someone's lap...

"Spoiled brat"? Do you know anything about him at all? He was a great progressive with impressive resolve and a remarkable willingness to throw his political career under a bus in order to do what he believed was right for the American people. He was a good President at a very bad time for the country, and was backed into an inescapable corner with the formation of the Federal Reserve, which he absolutely did not want, and I think it took a huge toll on his mental health.
I was referring to his personality. I know what he did and I generally respect him for it, but he was bratty and a bit of a slimy bastard (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dirty_tricks#Watergate-era_dirty_tricks).



I didn't know you knew him personally. I'm impressed. Most of his contemporaries who knew him describe him as intense but shy, painfully insecure, and coping with public life through a rigidly-constructed persona. It sounds like you knew him well enough to see a different side of him, though, so I'll take your word for it.
Oh for Pete's sake. Let me rephrase it then: if you listen to some of conversations he had on tape, he comes off as very bratty. Watch The Most Dangerous Man in America, for example. He seemed to be personally offended by Daniel Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon papers.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 09, 2010, 03:43:34 am
I guess if "Increasingly mentally ill" = "bratty".
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Juana on December 09, 2010, 03:54:07 am
I was unaware of that. The more you know, I suppose.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel 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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: ńͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ 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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Triple Zero 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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Kai 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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Fujikoma 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?
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Kai 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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle 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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Telarus on January 11, 2011, 06:02:55 pm
This shit is cool, and totally relevant:

http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-12-29-farmer-scientists-want-to-hack-society
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger 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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk 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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Epimetheus on January 11, 2011, 07:31:08 pm
Correcting waste and greed

Is that possible? Are we not beyond repair?
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Cain 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)
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Requia ☣ 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...
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger 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.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel 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?
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 09:56:33 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?

HAVING 10 BILLION PEOPLE EATING OFF THE SAME FARMLAND IS GOOD MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES!

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: BadBeast on January 12, 2011, 03:04:10 am
If a little farther down the line, with some genetic manipulation, a genome tweaked here and there, and some rooting compound or whatever, We should be able to genetically introduce a biological addition, that enhances our blood's abilities and efficiency. What I was thinking, is crossing a plant gene, Chlorophyll, into our blood, then we could photosynthesize all of our energy needs instead of having to raep the Earth with plowshares, and enslave whole other species for food. All we'll need is water, and a drop of phostrogen now and then. And of course, we would all be lovely shades of green, so there'd be no more racism, or colour prejudice. Surely someone could get started on this now, then we could have a truly green Olympic experience, for 2012, and the World might not end after all.   
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Requia ☣ on January 12, 2011, 03:13:40 am
Wtf are you smoking?
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2011, 03:32:27 am
Wtf are you smoking?

Apparently, he's been smoking AWESOME, and all you spags can do is shit on him.

What the fuck is up with you people today?  Why are we suddenly shitting on rants?  Everything he writes is on-topic satire, if anyone would take the fucking time to read it.

Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: BadBeast on January 12, 2011, 03:35:47 am
Just a little bit of skunk. Earlier on. ........Oh yeah, and a couple of little lines of ketamine!  :lulz:

eta, Ta Rog, I nearly got out the "A" word out earlier too, but I'd only ended up chasing it all over the the fucking forums again, trying to clear up the mess.
What with blizzards, earthquakes, and women wiping their dog's arses, it's been a bit of a week.  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Kai on January 12, 2011, 04:13:03 am
Wtf are you smoking?

Apparently, he's been smoking AWESOME, and all you spags can do is shit on him.

What the fuck is up with you people today?  Why are we suddenly shitting on rants?  Everything he writes is on-topic satire, if anyone would take the fucking time to read it.

I agree. It's good stuff. Do we just suddenly only accept Sepia-style surrealism when it's page length or something?
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 12, 2011, 04:13:53 am
Wtf are you smoking?

Apparently, he's been smoking AWESOME, and all you spags can do is shit on him.

What the fuck is up with you people today?  Why are we suddenly shitting on rants?  Everything he writes is on-topic satire, if anyone would take the fucking time to read it.



This.

I'm not sure what's suddenly so confusing about Badbeast's use of satire, sarcasm, or his biting wit.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Triple Zero on January 12, 2011, 01:19:42 pm
If a little farther down the line, with some genetic manipulation, a genome tweaked here and there, and some rooting compound or whatever, We should be able to genetically introduce a biological addition, that enhances our blood's abilities and efficiency. What I was thinking, is crossing a plant gene, Chlorophyll, into our blood, then we could photosynthesize all of our energy needs instead of having to raep the Earth with plowshares, and enslave whole other species for food. All we'll need is water, and a drop of phostrogen now and then AND BACON AND COFFEE. And of course, we would all be lovely shades of green, so there'd be no more racism, or colour prejudice. Surely someone could get started on this now, then we could have a truly green Olympic experience, for 2012, and the World might not end after all.   

fixed cause surely we'll go insane, otherwise.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: BadBeast on January 12, 2011, 02:23:42 pm
If a little farther down the line, with some genetic manipulation, a genome tweaked here and there, and some rooting compound or whatever, We should be able to genetically introduce a biological addition, that enhances our blood's abilities and efficiency. What I was thinking, is crossing a plant gene, Chlorophyll, into our blood, then we could photosynthesize all of our energy needs instead of having to raep the Earth with plowshares, and enslave whole other species for food. All we'll need is water, and a drop of phostrogen now and then AND BACON AND COFFEE. And of course, we would all be lovely shades of green, so there'd be no more racism, or colour prejudice. Surely someone could get started on this now, then we could have a truly green Olympic experience, for 2012, and the World might not end after all.   

fixed cause surely we'll go insane, otherwise.
An oversight on my part. Not rolling far without bacon. And I understand some people can be quite . . . . . . . flaky, without coffee. So of course, if you need to get caffed up, then carry on. I'm certainly not giving up smoking, just because I'm bright viridian green. Also, I don't need my lungs to work so efficiently anymore, as nearly all my respiratory process now takes place in my blood. The Co2 I need for photosynthesis, is replaced by my red blood cells as they exchange the waste oxygen from my Phsy, for waste Co2 from resp.
One un-foreseen side effect is that my hair now follows a 24 hour phototropic cycle, and always points towards the Sun. And that's OK, but it seems to have a slight Aphid infestation.  I don't know whether to go with an Organo-phosphate Shampoo, or to use eco-friendly Ladybirds. Oh, and I now shit pure John Innes Compost. Nice earthy smell. Not like shit at all. Interesting.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Triple Zero on January 12, 2011, 04:18:34 pm
Excellent, then we are in agreement. Carry on!
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: ńͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on January 13, 2011, 12:14:59 am
Wtf are you smoking?

Apparently, he's been smoking AWESOME, and all you spags can do is shit on him.

What the fuck is up with you people today?  Why are we suddenly shitting on rants?  Everything he writes is on-topic satire, if anyone would take the fucking time to read it.



This.

I'm not sure what's suddenly so confusing about Badbeast's use of satire, sarcasm, or his biting wit.

Maybe you guys are reading too much into Requia's comment.

I think Badbeast is a creative genius and expert troll (mittens to you, you brilliant old bastard). However, until Requia adds clarification, I find the most parsimonious explanation is that Requia just didn't get it.

Perhaps it's a regional or generational thing, but "WTF are you smoking?" seems like a pretty innocuous expression of confusion, not hostility.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 13, 2011, 01:28:57 am
Wtf are you smoking?

Apparently, he's been smoking AWESOME, and all you spags can do is shit on him.

What the fuck is up with you people today?  Why are we suddenly shitting on rants?  Everything he writes is on-topic satire, if anyone would take the fucking time to read it.



This.

I'm not sure what's suddenly so confusing about Badbeast's use of satire, sarcasm, or his biting wit.

Maybe you guys are reading too much into Requia's comment.

I think Badbeast is a creative genius and expert troll (mittens to you, you brilliant old bastard). However, until Requia adds clarification, I find the most parsimonious explanation is that Requia just didn't get it.

Perhaps it's a regional or generational thing, but "WTF are you smoking?" seems like a pretty innocuous expression of confusion, not hostility.

That's what I'd have thought, except that similar or more pointed comments have been made toward Badbeast's posts two or three other times recently.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: BadBeast on January 13, 2011, 06:28:40 am
All of which went completely over my head. Of course, now that they have been pointed out,  I'm far too paranoid to post anything at all! It took me three hours to bring myself to Log in.  The Fear™ is stalking me now as well. I think I lost it somewhere in Apple talk, but it's still there, lurking. If anyone sees it, could they please just grab it for me, and I'll stuff it back into it's cage, and torment it with a pointy stick! Thanks.


Oh, and I was joking about the paranoia, btw. *Glances around, nervously*  :evil:
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: LMNO on January 13, 2011, 02:42:24 pm
Ok, I admit, I had noticed that his posting style had shifted in the past few days.

I made a snarky observation to that effect.  No hostility meant.

Now that I've gotten a feel for it, I think that his last dozen plus posts have been brilliant.

Jolly show, old chap, etc.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: BadBeast on January 13, 2011, 02:47:12 pm
Ok, I admit, I had noticed that his posting style had shifted in the past few days.

I made a snarky observation to that effect.  No hostility meant.

Now that I've gotten a feel for it, I think that his last dozen plus posts have been brilliant.

Jolly show, old chap, etc.
Thanks mate, and It really did all go over my head. 
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Reginald Ret on April 22, 2012, 06:32:09 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.
This is what i always say.
Most educated women prefer to have children later in life. This effectively reduces the total reproduction without using the less palatable methods for limiting such.
One other method i think should be considered is not banning chemicals that reduce fertility.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 22, 2012, 06:45:22 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.
This is what i always say.
Most educated women prefer to have children later in life. This effectively reduces the total reproduction without using the less palatable methods for limiting such.
One other method i think should be considered is not banning chemicals that reduce fertility.

Wait, what?
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on April 22, 2012, 07:13:39 pm
Eeeehh, that's really shaky territory there, Regret. Chemicals that impact fertility usually do lots of other horrible things. Reducing population by giving women, say, ovarian cancer, or causing lethal birth defects en masse sounds a little bit... Mengele-ish.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 22, 2012, 07:15:03 pm
Eeeehh, that's really shaky territory there, Regret. Chemicals that impact fertility usually do lots of other horrible things. Reducing population by giving women, say, ovarian cancer, or causing lethal birth defects en masse sounds a little bit... Mengele-ish.

Not to mention that if he's talking about chemicals that are released into the environment, they won't selectively effect only humans.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Cain on April 22, 2012, 07:25:34 pm
I'm thinking regret might have meant contraceptives...English isn't his first language, after all, and that's not one of the easier words to remember.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on April 22, 2012, 07:27:11 pm
I'm thinking regret might have meant contraceptives...English isn't his first language, after all, and that's not one of the easier words to remember.

That would make a lot more sense. And sound less like a plan devised by Lex Luthor.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Lenin McCarthy on April 22, 2012, 07:35:18 pm
The OP reminded me of the chorus of this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1N22LJlhhs): I'm gonna feed our children non-organic food, and with the money saved take 'em to the zoo.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 22, 2012, 08:12:08 pm
I'm thinking regret might have meant contraceptives...English isn't his first language, after all, and that's not one of the easier words to remember.

That makes much more sense on some levels, but then raises the question, what does he mean "consider not banning" them? Contraceptives are only banned in a tiny handful of areas.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Cain on April 22, 2012, 08:15:37 pm
The policy of trying to ban them is quite popular with the Catholic Church, Muslims and the American Religious Right though.  Some take a more incrementalist approach...but especially in the Middle East and Africa (two places where, arguably, access to contraception is most needed) religious groups are most vocal about the unholy nature of it.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Reginald Ret on April 23, 2012, 05:05:21 pm
Nah, i was going for the all out evil bastard version.
Except that i derped and didn't realise it would have side effects and or be aselective.
Once again reality got in the way of my genius plans to conquer improve the world.
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 05:11:04 pm
Nah, i was going for the all out evil bastard version.

Oh, well then...You're in some pretty famous company.

Do you plan to start with smudgy people, or Jews?
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Reginald Ret on April 24, 2012, 08:48:27 pm
Nah, i was going for the all out evil bastard version.

Oh, well then...You're in some pretty famous company.

Do you plan to start with smudgy people, or Jews?
All humans at the same time, i don't care.
Though effectively it would have been humans in the most polluted area first.
...
my first thought was: 'Yay! polluting cunts first!' but then i realised most humans outsource their pollution.
Dammit, there is just no way to win at this eugenics thing is there :(

Nevermind, i'll just put my vote behind the education point and nothing else.
Oh, and i'll post this TED talk by Melinda Gates here.
http://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_gates_let_s_put_birth_control_back_on_the_agenda.html
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:51:16 pm
Dammit, there is just no way to win at this eugenics thing is there :(

Not if you're gonna get all ethical on me, no.

What's wrong with killing off Chinese people so you and I can have an Iphone?
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 08:58:38 pm
People dont care as long as they can have their gadgets.

Twid
using his gadget
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Reginald Ret on April 24, 2012, 10:20:24 pm
Dammit, there is just no way to win at this eugenics thing is there :(

Not if you're gonna get all ethical on me, no.

What's wrong with killing off Chinese people so you and I can have an Iphone?
Nothing!
It's not like they are good people we would be killing right?
What with their 1 child eugenic policy massively reducing the X chromosome variation.
Soon women will also suffer from the many afflictions that are more common among men than women and are caused by a defective X-chromosome!

like color blindness! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_recessive#Examples)
Finally we will have gender equality!
muahahhahwhwhw
Title: Re: Anti-environmentalism.
Post by: Fujikoma on April 03, 2019, 08:13:07 pm
We're going to be in deep trouble the second Incels realize they have something in common with ISIS.