A polite suggestion

[Eugenedebs]

I'm going to cheerfully throw this out here. How many people value this planet? I'm not asking with something such as Climate Change to behind it, as I am certain that will cause some people to tune out whatever I write here. Regardless of your reasoning, I think most people like the idea of this planet staying around for a while longer. Refute any particular theory that you want to, but humanity is not playing nice with the rest of the world.
Bluefin Tuna in Danger
Rainforest Facts
Overfishing - A global environmental problem, threat and disaster.
These websites contain just a small sample of the impact humanity has on this planet. Complaints about personal liberties being infringed on (I see a lot of these), or arguments that conservation is unnecessary because Climate Change is a myth (this is another popular one) on this forum be damned. I do not care if you think either Climate change a myth or your liberties are infringed on, the fact of the matter is we have to curb our excesses. Perhaps that means more central power in the hands of certain governments (globally, not just nationally), to contain the damage. I remain a skeptic about Climate Change, but the fundamental message is still important: shape up, or else everything, not just the animals, loses big time.
If we plan right, perhaps your favorite sushi will be here for your kids, or maybe the Rainforests will still serve as objects of wonder, rather than McDonalds cattle land. Can anyone of us honestly say that you do not care about anything but yourself? If you can, shame on you.
To the rest of us, please owe up to the fact we are harming the planet, and maybe we should curb this attitude.

 

[DeeJayH]

90+% of all species to ever inhabit the earth are extinct :shrug:

 

[Tucker Case]

90+% of all species to ever inhabit the earth are extinct :shrug:

Proof that we're slacking.

I bet with a little effort we can take that number even higher!

 

[Wessexman]

90+% of all species to ever inhabit the earth are extinct :shrug:

That's like saying 90% of institutions are extinct. A Conservative still does not believe that it is a good idea to quickly overturn the rest. Our societies, institutions and individuals have matured in one particular enviroment it is as rash and foolish to treat the massive danger of massive change in a blais fashio as it would have been the French or Bolshevik revolutions. A Conservative must be Conservationist.

 

[Southern Man]

..... Perhaps that means more central power in the hands of certain governments (globally, not just nationally), to contain the damage.....

I don't see how central control would help things, in fact just the opposite. Look at the environments of China and the former USSR. Shame on you for wanting that.

 

[ARealConservative]

great society style policies at work.............

 

[Eugenedebs]

I don't see how central control would help things, in fact just the opposite. Look at the environments of China and the former USSR. Shame on you for wanting that.

The direction that those countries used their power is why their environments ended up the way they did. It does not mean that any future use of power will end that way. If I had seen any indication, any whatsoever, that through individual effort alone we could stop this destruction I would not propose this. Yet, the Laughing Fox, the North African Bear, the passenger pigeon (just to name a few), stand extinct as a grim reminder that humanity isn't very good at curbing itself. However, if you want to refute me, by all means, start cutting back. That is all I ask. To all those who have posted so far, I am not asking for justifications for your behavior, I am pleading with you to change, so that I don't have to continue proposing my method.

 

[Southern Man]

The direction that those countries used their power is why their environments ended up the way they did. It does not mean that any future use of power will end that way. If I had seen any indication, any whatsoever, that through individual effort alone we could stop this destruction I would not propose this. Yet, the Laughing Fox, the North African Bear, the passenger pigeon (just to name a few), stand extinct as a grim reminder that humanity isn't very good at curbing itself. However, if you want to refute me, by all means, start cutting back. That is all I ask. To all those who have posted so far, I am not asking for justifications for your behavior, I am pleading with you to change, so that I don't have to continue proposing my method.

No reason to cut back. For example, since I have a nuclear power plant nearby, it is my source for electricity, which means that my home is zero emissions. And the plant is 100% private utility.

 

[Wessexman]

The direction that those countries used their power is why their environments ended up the way they did. It does not mean that any future use of power will end that way. If I had seen any indication, any whatsoever, that through individual effort alone we could stop this destruction I would not propose this. Yet, the Laughing Fox, the North African Bear, the passenger pigeon (just to name a few), stand extinct as a grim reminder that humanity isn't very good at curbing itself. However, if you want to refute me, by all means, start cutting back. That is all I ask. To all those who have posted so far, I am not asking for justifications for your behavior, I am pleading with you to change, so that I don't have to continue proposing my method.

Unaccountable power which will be unavoidable in an entreprise of centralised control nationally and certainly globally will tend to abuse. It is also silly to try and continue with the general mindset which has created this problem in the first place. The problem is real but a real solution will needs be decentralised or it will tend to abuse, tyranny and inefficieny and likely cause more problems that it cures.

 

[Eugenedebs]

Unaccountable power which will be unavoidable in an entreprise of centralised control nationally and certainly globally will tend to abuse. It is also silly to try and continue with the general mindset which has created this problem in the first place. The problem is real but a real solution will needs be decentralised or it will tend to abuse, tyranny and inefficieny and likely cause more problems that it cures.

What evidence can you produce that shows a massed group of individuals successfully and independently making a large scale difference in the impact humanity has? I'm not talking Sierra club, I'm talking on a grand scale. If you can produce it, I will accept it and return to my role working with small rallies, but I'm inclined to believe from experience that a firmer hand could have better results. Example, Southern Man has cited the fact he uses nuclear power, but how many people can do the same? Without additional funds the answer remains: not enough. If you produce something that will make me believe no power is required by a government to change the world, I will try your way. Whatever fear you have of abuse is doubtless justified, but so is my own fears for this planet.

 

[Wessexman]

What evidence can you produce that shows a massed group of individuals successfully and independently making a large scale difference in the impact humanity has? I'm not talking Sierra club, I'm talking on a grand scale. If you can produce it, I will accept it and return to my role working with small rallies, but I'm inclined to believe from experience that a firmer hand could have better results. Example, Southern Man has cited the fact he uses nuclear power, but how many people can do the same? Without additional funds the answer remains: not enough. If you produce something that will make me believe no power is required by a government to change the world, I will try your way. Whatever fear you have of abuse is doubtless justified, but so is my own fears for this planet.

I don't know what you are asking here? I'm saying that centralised, large scale solutions and control not only has been shown to be dangerous to liberty again and again but it has also been shown to be generally inefficient and to cause as many problems as it fixes. People can make small scale differences a lot more easily on a more managable scale, particularly if they're not waiting for big brother to do everything for them.

 

[Eugenedebs]

I don't know what you are asking here? I'm saying that centralised, large scale solutions and control not only has been shown to be dangerous to liberty again and again but it has also been shown to be generally inefficient and to cause as many problems as it fixes. People can make small scale differences a lot more easily on a more managable scale, particularly if they're not waiting for big brother to do everything for them.

What I'm asking for is evidence. You haven't given it. Show me that your relaxed standards will work. To what degree do you propose relaxing standards? To laissez faire capitalism? That's been a large part of the problem. Perhaps a small group can make some headway, but large government has helped kick start some of the best programs to ever exist. Think the FDA, or the EPA. Now take it a step further, and then real progress could be made. I have yet to see any sign that small scale solutions produce any better results or are any more efficient. The concept of liberty can conceal greed and the choice to destroy as easily as it displays this forum as an example of people exorcising their liberty. My point is, your method has yet to be tried successfully. Whilst what I propose has failed, but also succeeded. Which do you prefer, the possibility of success? Or the realization that as too small a group no one will listen to this plea?

 

[Wessexman]

What I'm asking for is evidence. You haven't given it. Show me that your relaxed standards will work.

Your the one advocating centralised national or even global control. It is you who must show evidence.

To what degree do you propose relaxing standards? To laissez faire capitalism? That's been a large part of the problem. Perhaps a small group can make some headway, but large government has helped kick start some of the best programs to ever exist. Think the FDA, or the EPA. Now take it a step further, and then real progress could be made. I have yet to see any sign that small scale solutions produce any better results or are any more efficient. The concept of liberty can conceal greed and the choice to destroy as easily as it displays this forum as an example of people exorcising their liberty. My point is, your method has yet to be tried successfully. Whilst what I propose has failed, but also succeeded. Which do you prefer, the possibility of success? Or the realization that as too small a group no one will listen to this plea?

My method has been shown to work far more than yours. It to the little group that much of what is could of our current society comes from and it was gov't that at best responded and at worst got in the way.

What you're saying is that the gov't, which in our time is a very overbearing institution, has often been involved. Well no ****, it does its best to be involved in everything in society today. But it still remains true that centralised control is much more a recipe for absue, tyranny and inefficiency than are more decentralised ways and if you want to invoke this tyrannical means then you need good evidence that it will be worth it in a particular sitution. I see little here, gov'ts and large corporations have been as likely to harm the enviroment as save it.

 

[Eugenedebs]

Your the one advocating centralised national or even global control. It is you who must show evidence.

I'll bite
Government Success Stories
Taken strictly from my current adopted nation here is a list of achievements carried out by large government. Perhaps similar gains could be made environmentally. If laws are not put in place to help cut back, then what is actually stopping us?
I am not saying that using a large government is the ideal solution, but trusting only small groups to tackle the impact of six billion people is like trying to empty the oceans with a bucket. If we conserve and you help me convince all others to as well, to scale back our destruction, then what I propose is moot. But I've tried that, been down that road and back again to no success.
I would also ask you again, please show me evidence of success that was started, AND finished by small groups and governments, or examples where the free market halted its practice on its own. Show me that, and I will go back to trying to help the small groups I have been a part of for a long while.

 

[Wessexman]

I'll bite
Government Success Stories

Just looking at a few of these.

Settling the West: The U.S. government played a vital role in settling the West, including massive land purchases and giveaways, the Homestead Act, the Pony Express, agricultural colleges, rural electrification, telephone wiring, road-building, irrigation, dam-building, farm subsidies, and farm foreclosure loans. (More)

Actually it was individuals who settled the west. The railroads aided monopoly, the land purchases were either part of gov't aided land speculation or would not have been needed if that was going on and a lot of the infastructure of the West was done just fine without the state intervening.

Employee Rights: Over strong opposition from business leaders and conservatives in Congress, liberals passed all the laws that workers take for granted today. These include the elimination of child labor, the creation of the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, paid vacations, the minimum wage, workers' compensation, worker's insurance programs, Social Security, organized labor rights and worker safety and health laws.

Most of these, though they may have had good effect also had negative effects such as increasing industrial consolidation and costs which helped to further the interests of big business and big labour over that of the individual worker.

The Federal Reserve System: Using Keynesian policies to expand or contract the money supply, the Fed has completely eliminated the depression from the American economic experience in the last six decades.

:rofl



I don't think that all centralisation to all degrees is necessarily bad but I believe in subsidiarity and I'd need to see real evidence that giving power to a centralised national or global entity would be a good idea and that its power would be held accountable, limited and it would not be tyrannical. I have seen nothing like that from you.

Taken strictly from my current adopted nation here is a list of achievements carried out by large government. Perhaps similar gains could be made environmentally. If laws are not put in place to help cut back, then what is actually stopping us?
I am not saying that using a large government is the ideal solution, but trusting only small groups to tackle the impact of six billion people is like trying to empty the oceans with a bucket. If we conserve and you help me convince all others to as well, to scale back our destruction, then what I propose is moot. But I've tried that, been down that road and back again to no success.

What you're saying is we should trust to the same sort of solutions that created most of the problems. I see no reason why we should trust the state over smaller communities working together, you have given no reason and the latter is the default position from a position of efficiency and liberty.

What you are forgetting is we live in a very centralised and authoritarian political and economic system that partly defines how people few problems and their solutions. People are less willing to make decentralised, conservation decisions due partly to the impact of this system. Help to create a more decentralised setting and you will likely help to solve this problem. I feel certain if Wessex had a lot more power we'd sort out the problem in our region a lot more quickly than the British gov't could because the forces become far more managable on the smaller scale and individuals can make more of a difference.

What you are basically advocating is a rationalist scheme whereby we transfer all power over this issue to one centralised entity in the vain, ahnd historically absurd hope, that it will be able to sort it out. This will simply grant it a lot of unaccountable power, which tends to abuse, it will move the decisions further away from the ground floor where they need to be implemented tending to inefficiency and will create an expensive bureaucracy which will always tend to the use of uniformity across the board which will increase inefficiency and the problems of power further.

I would also ask you again, please show me evidence of success that was started, AND finished by small groups and governments, or examples where the free market halted its practice on its own. Show me that, and I will go back to trying to help the small groups I have been a part of for a long while.

I'm not talking about the free market. Small groups have achieved much, they have been responsible for most of the successes of our civilisation. It was not large gov't that created the steam engine or convinced people that racism was wrong. At best small groups managed to convince gov'ts of the important issue and it gave some helpful support, often it got in the way or worse.

 

[Gill]

The direction that those countries used their power is why their environments ended up the way they did. It does not mean that any future use of power will end that way. If I had seen any indication, any whatsoever, that through individual effort alone we could stop this destruction I would not propose this. Yet, the Laughing Fox, the North African Bear, the passenger pigeon (just to name a few), stand extinct as a grim reminder that humanity isn't very good at curbing itself. However, if you want to refute me, by all means, start cutting back. That is all I ask. To all those who have posted so far, I am not asking for justifications for your behavior, I am pleading with you to change, so that I don't have to continue proposing my method.

How many species have become extinct in the past 75 years??

 

[danarhea]

That's like saying 90% of institutions are extinct. A Conservative still does not believe that it is a good idea to quickly overturn the rest. Our societies, institutions and individuals have matured in one particular enviroment it is as rash and foolish to treat the massive danger of massive change in a blais fashio as it would have been the French or Bolshevik revolutions. A Conservative must be Conservationist.

Absolutely. Goldwater was one of the best conservationists America ever had.

 

[Grateful Heart]

I view myself as a conservationist. I believe we ought to preserve natural environments for our own good.

There's something special about wilderness and wildlife because we are, at heart, a part of it. So preserving it benefits us not only ecologically, but psychologically. (No offense to those who can't stand to leave the big city.)

Teddy Roosevelt had it right.