• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

The Self-defeating nature of the Green movement

Migrated topic.
look, we have to be pragmatic here. What is your point?

I feel this 'global warming is a myth' story is a complete diversion of the essence of the whole question. It is a fact that humans cause a huge impact on the planet and a lot of suffering, and that for any sanity to return to humanity, this fact need to be accepted and dealt with. If you deny this, then really, I cant even continue. I dont know about you but I dont think the planet and humanity is at it's full potential and in the best state.

Im not talking about consensus on the exact levels of CO2 levels 137.4 million years ago, Im talking about the fact that we are taking more than can be given to us. This is called unsustainability, and it happens in many different levels, not just on the effect on this or that process or on the quantity of this or that chemical. It is a stupid shot in the foot, except that the rate at which it goes on means in one life time not much difference is seen, so the effect is in our children or grandchildren's foot (or head).

Really, I dont care for what al gore says or not, I read the scientific reports myself, check the sources and see with my own eyes the transformations humans cause in places and decide in my own conscience if that is a good thing or not.

I think people who try to argue against the idea of human influence in global warming forget what their point brings about, which is to give the excuse for big industries, governments and the 'average person' to continue with their selfish and destructive unsustainable growth and maintanance. This attitude is a perfect example of nitpicking in my view.

Also, the 19,000 number doesnt say anything about who these people are, what is their point and what contribution to humanity they are bringing about. It only is a blind black and white division between two imaginary abstract groups of 'those who are for' and 'those who are against' the human-affects-global-warming ideas.
 
The issue is distorted and polarized and detractive from the real issues at hand, because the real issues are far too complicated for the modern fast-paced mass-media and the socio-political mainstream. The concentration of ozone is very slight, but its function is incredibly significant; the impact of loss of that very slight amount cannot yet be gauged, but why gamble? The concentration of O2 and CO2 on the planet is only very slight compared to, say, N2, but their function and impact is incredibly significant to the natural world.

The real issue here is efficiency (in terms of energy and material loss, waste, and misallocation, and the pollution that usually results from it). Our industries and technologies are nowhere near as efficient as they could be at this point in history, and capitalism hasn't fulfilled it's role in stimulating development therein--likely due to the forces of consumer-culture. This is a problem that will eventually spiral far out of our control, so the best remedy is to simply cut it off while we still can.

'Global warming' is perhaps as much a propaganda term as 'homeland security' or 'war on terror', but its goals are at significantly less nefarious; that's at least something to consider.
 
Hear hear, Endlessness and Amor_fati! Detracting from the unsustainability of modern humanity- especially when done without proof- is nothing short of denial in fear of losing some of the emptier comforts of consumerism. And we don't even have to lose these comforts, we just have to find more intelligent ways to organise them. If we carry on ignoring the problem, we could well lose everything. We're talking a Mad Max scenario here!

Even if global warming DID turn out to be caused solely by the sun, we would still have benefited vastly by developing alternative technologies and more sustainable practices.

It's a simple as using a stainless steel frying pan with a little olive oil, which will last a lifetime and can be easily recycled if no longer required, rather than a non-stick piece of multilayered junk that you'll throw away a year later. Or, at the other end of the scale, superinsulating your home so you hardly even need to use any energy anyway and benefiting from lower energy bills forever after. How is that so threatening?! Some people are just scared and resistant to change, even when it's for their own good.
 
I also have to add that I have very little against the movement to stop 'global-warming'. As long their bumbling brings about some sort of progress. The masses and the policy-makers need to be persuaded in some way, so if it takes a little bit of spin or marketing to halt the negligence, so be it. It's a sorry state of affairs, but the enemy of your enemy is your friend, right?
 
While I am not in principle against people doing something about global warming I am very much against politicians plans to solve it. Its really dangerous to freedom when they start taxing and controlling carbon emissions with strict legislation. This will destroy nearly all small business who can't compete with big companies. This will also destroy any chance developing nations have for development. Last but not least it will not solve the problem.

The solutions is bottom up not top down. If people want to conserve energy its really quite simple. Turn off your lights use less buy less drive less etc. There are hundreds of ways to conserve energy.

I am also now beginning to question the data behind the theory of global warming too. Its really mostly built upon computer models. Also there is the fact that the sun does influence weather, solar activity correlates even closer with average temperature then CO2 emissions. Also water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide!

I am in no denial that the average temperature is warming at a rate higher then we have ever observed. Endlessness I don't know if its correct to state that the earth now is warmer then it ever has been because I do not think that is true. What is true is the rate that its changing is faster then we have seen so far. There is evidence that warming and cooling has happened at this speed also I think being uncovered from ice cores and things like that.

My opinions about general pollution is the same. Its a bottom up solution. Peoples property rights need to be defended and the market needs to be allowed to function without government interference so that as resources become scarce they become expensive and people invent or reach for alternatives. Also free functioning and trading people can come up with as many competitive green solutions as they want in a free market. When oil and big agriculture gets subsidizes people cannot compete and thus nothing changes.
 
I would never deny the fact that we have an impact on the environment. Of course we do. I just personally believe that our impact is limited to our adjeceant and immediate environment. IMO, i think we have very little to do with global climate.
 
So there is no bad gesses that further aid in the thinning out of the ozone?? What about other gasses taking the place of the oxygen that turns into O3? Wouldn't that be pollution and harmful for us? Don't we want a good amount of O3 up there?
 
for sure there is an ozone layer, and the idea of that it is 'thin' and therefore irrelevant is imo ridiculous. The ozone layer might be thin and yet its VERY effective at blocking UV rays and it rebuilds itself, as the chemistry and scientific observations show. The thing is, the ozone layer is a lesser subject nowadays because the solutions have been already put forward and started (Banning CFCs, which as burnt said are still traded illegally in some places but in a lesser extent and are diminishing).

BTW, the whole story about water vapour being worse than CO2 is not a good comparison because one does not take in account the whole amounts involved. There are pretty trustable sources out there regarding this. Also methane, of which a good part the cows are responsible, represents about 20% of the green house effect.

It seems to me pretty clear that humans have a big effect on the planet, including the climate. If one doesnt want to think this way, fine, but its important to read the sources and decide for oneself. Obviously the sun affects the climate and there are natural variations but as I said, the humans have an obvious impact on it.

For those that say the global warming is not nature-affected. Did you ever look at the graphs of CO2, methane and temperature levels for the last, say, 10.000 years, as permafrost ice-core data shows ? There has been nothing even close to what it is now, its very hard to argue of natural cycles. There are pretty big changes out there happening, and I think its wonderful that there is a 'hype' around global warming and ecological consciousness. Sure there are always people that exagerate, misinterpret data and so on, but thats not the point. Obviously we would preffer if it was all true and unbiased information and ideas, but better a 'fashion of the ecological' than a 'fashion of fuck-the-earth', no?

of course we must still be careful with all this 'carbon sequestering', as sometimes it also takes away the focus of the problem, like companies throwing residues on the oceans but seen and advertised as 'ecologically conscious' just because the pay for someone in the amazon not to cut down the forest and get some carbon credit. So we must always keep these things in mind, be conscious consumers and do the only thing we can which is make changes in our own behaviors and the small world around us.
 
Agree endlessness its better that people have a good attitude toward our environment. My worry comes from politicians who will use peoples feelings about the environment as a way to control them and take more wealth from them. I think all solutions start with people wanting to change things.

I also think its interesting to debate the fine details about global warming because there is still a lot of data being gathered and lots of different ways to look at it. There is no firm conclusions. For example it seems very unlikely that the sea level will ever rise more then 10 or 20 feet despite global warming. That to me is a good thing and I am not going to say "cool now lets pollute since the sea level won't rise so much" but rather "thats one less thing to worry about but lets still keep learning about this and what our role is".
 
yep, agree also.. it seems even global warming story was appropriated by the speculators and those out there just making a buck out of scare tactics (even though some may be true)
 
I will read those links later on, sounds interesting

for now I'd like to say that forbidding people to have more than 1 child and relying on such measures to save the world's environmental issue is plain dumb (no offense to your friend). If there is only one left, but this person wastes more than the whole amount of what, lets say, 5 conscious people would need for their well being, well then you see nothing is solved.

I believe its all a question of lack of consciousnes/conscience. I think it doesnt matter much what system one puts to the people, or what measures of control one enforces, as people always find a way to 'cheat' for personal profit, at the cost of others/nature.

People are like baloons filled with air: if you press one side trying to 'repress' something considered undesirable, then another side will swell up in compensation and maybe even explode. I think this also is true not only for individuals but for groups, nations and our whole race. External measures of control only push the problems (or energy-venting) elsewhere.

I do think there might be more healthy systems, of course, and possibly the one you suggest is one of them, burnt. But I dont think this by itself can solve. Corrupt people corrupt the system. So together with some outside changes, I think the key is education, one that does not enforce the blind memorizing of certain momentarily-valued knowledge, but instead one that helps the development of each person's potential, conscience and consciousness, so that they in turn can deal healthily with whatever information and situation they come across, not just with the one the teacher knows about. Learning the sytems and dynamics, not only the currently-known parts.

Any upfront change from the crap we see that benefits a few individuals and groups, will face a direct opposition, a contrary force. It is some sort of law, similar to the concept of inertia in physics. Thats why I think that a gradual unnoticed change that takes a few generations, through education, will be more effective in the long term. This is not to disregard those that are in the 'front-lines', like some good environmentalists, or people such as the MAPS crew trying to legitimize psychedelics in the academic/scientific/medical world, or those trying to bring about a saner economic policy and so on. I have big respect for all these people and am happy they exist, but I think nothing of this works if we also dont work in education, thinking of results that most likely we wont ever see or maybe neither our children, but possibly will make a big difference for the next generations
 
Yes that's something I left out. Is that education is the other key to solving environmental problems. People need to learn that being sustainable is not only good for the environment but it can also be profitable and save you money.
 
from someone that pretty much skipped to the end of this thread:

we are here to consume.

i know. it sucks to think it, and it makes me feel icky to say it. but it seems true.

we are here to consume and poop.

end

of

story.

we eat, we proccess, we break it down, repeat.

it seems sick and cheap.

but seriously, that's that. we don't need to perpetuate anything beyond the ability to break everything down to the smallest measurement naturally possible.

yes, that is our natural purpose.

yes nature will destroy us if nature sees fit.

yes the odds of being obliterated by an asteroid before any significant evolutionary leap are larger than naught.

yes... it is pointless to try to save life. life ends when gia says it does. life is much more powerful than any pollution we can devise. life is an illusion that requires no deciphering.

so to make a long story short. fuck CO2, fuck greenhouse effect. we are here to eat and shit. anything else is pointless and readily spurned.

sorry, but we just aren't as important as some would like to think. so enjoy the game. it's of your own design, so play play play.
 
That's a selfish atitude. Fine if you want to live like that but it's not fair on others who have to share the world with you.
Let's use an analogy. You're a smoker sitting in a small room. The room is full of other men, women and children, many of whom are non-smokers. Should you have a cigarette? No, of course not. If you want a cigarette, go outside the room.
Now, imagine this room is floating in space, so you can't go outside. What should you do? Give up smoking.

This is just an analogy, I'm not actually against smoking. There's only one world so those who want to pollute can't step outside to do it. So we have to compromise for the sake of each others health. Yes, enjoy life, but not at the expense of other people.
 
yes, seems quite selfish.. Sure we will always leave a footprint where we go, but this is different than saying: 'well, if im gonna affect this place, might as well go all the way and throw my toxic waste in the rivers in the amazon.. who cares anyways?'

gotta think of others, of the future generations... think what kind of world would you like to leave for your children, or grandchildren.
 
well, first i preface with a little sorry-i-got-carried-away. i was drinking and pretty nihilistic when i wrote that, so it smacks of a bit of venom.

but with that said, i suppose i should say i believe it... kinda. i don't mean that we should dump toxic waste and forsake others. but i do mean that as of now, in our current evolutionary state we are not far removed at all from any other living thing. we're a few hops skips and a jump from tadpoles. and, life is supposed to consume and poop (to put it crudely). that priority is still in us.

in the grand scheme, to me, humanity is hardly even close to the end. i mean, if you think we will even survive long anough to wipe out all life, it can't say i believe it. the very genetic blueprint in us says to eat eat eat, and that is what we will be until we evolve, or die out. and if we die out, it is how it's supposed to be.

we are not what we are, we are what we will become. and that takes strife. nothing changes because things are a-okay. things change because they get ugly. we will not be here forever, no matter how much we recycle. an asteroid, or ice age will likely see to that. but if not, if it gets gross, and grimey, that is what will make people fix it. sadly, it would seem things aren't nearly bad enough, and it may take a bit more convincing, or a mutation granting us another work-around.

i love this planet. it's where i keep all my stuff. and it has the coolest shit to look at and interact with. sometimes (a lot of the times) that love gets so great i get furious at our plight. i watch people use one another, hear news of terrible crimes, and it gets me to a point where my tact in explaining human nature is lacking (to say the least). and so i go on diatribes that make hardly any sense and (in this case) come across as a everyone for themselves. that isn't what i meant. it's just how i wrote it in that mental state. dunno if that makes sense, but i thought i'd try to define where i was coming from a bit more.

EDIT: i am also aware that my comments are off topic, and for that i apologize, really i only reposted to try to explain my weird post earlier (i am admittadly embarassed). tequila makes everything blurry.
 
Back
Top Bottom