Environmentalism is now primarily about stifling basic human aspiration

[flogger]

The Green and environmental movement has this obsession with limits to everything, we are consuming too much they wail, people in the developed nations need 4 planet Earths to meet their current consumption levels.

This desire to limit everything is the same primitive thought response that has stopped many of the so called primitive tribes from ever evolving beyond, the hard hand to mouth existence they have known for thousands of years.

This hard drudge of a life is the dream of ecomentalists like David Suzuki, long time human hater Paul Ehrlich who wants to kill off 80% of humans while making sure the remaining 19.99% live in abject poverty. The other 0.01% can continue with 21st Century life as normal, because someone has to be in charge and self appointed Green environmentalists always know best

The pessimism of Environmentalism devalues and distorts the natural human desire to progress as greed and destruction, something that must be prevented, and failing that punished.

One discovers when engaging alarmists that it is more about the background narrative and belief system that people make an emotional commitment to than it is about factual evidence or rational/empirical science. This limits perspective and continues as a leading threat to human development and progress toward a better future

The narrative follows that natural human desire for a better life, and the use of resources that this requires, is the cause of nature’s destruction; it leads to the exhaustion of limited resources. Earth must be saved from this destroying vermin that does not respect the sacred limits of life .

Limits thinking has been an essential element in the environmental narrative of imminent apocalypse that has become lodged in the public consciousness over the past decades. And consequently it has inspired endless obstruction of human endeavor to create a better life for all. An endeavor that needs abundant and inexpensive energy supplies. The rabid resistance to current gas fracking technologies is a case in point despite their far lower pollution footprint

These elite environmentalists, having attained a comfortable standard of living, now want others to refrain from the same levels of success and development. Through a centralized program of coerced redistribution and reversed development they would return all of humanity to levels of primitivism and poverty last known worldwide centuries ago.

This environmental narrative is profoundly anti-human because it is anti-progress, anti-success, and anti-development and growth.

The point to remember is that every aspect of the Green Dream program be it renewable energy, saving whales, hugging trees or molesting Bugs Bunny is inexorably linked to stifling human progress and aspiration, and ultimately culling us, to protect what they regard as their planet.

Environmentalist Thinking Is All About Limits & Hating People | Tory Aardvark

 

[iacardsfan]

I actually have two ideas that go along with the environment.

First of all if these green technologies that we hear the President speak of are really as good as he makes them out to be, why aren't the oil tycoons and other upper class members fighting to get the lead in the field. You can't tell me that if was even half as profitable as we are lead to believe the top 1% wouldn't be all over that and making a profit on it already. Obviously these green technologies are not as fruitful endeavors as were once believed. Granted, it might be the market and the economy, but that does not constitute the government handing out money to whomever they feel deserving to start these businesses.

The second point is that people will eventually begin to realize that we are destroying all that we have, that is why we have these focus groups and individuals. Eventually we are going to get to a point where something must be done, and it will occur without a government mandate. The government interfering in the environment is a valiant idea but in reality we will reach the point that people will do the right thing for the environment without Washington DC telling them. Some might argue that it will be too late, but in all honesty we are already turning the corner, people are beginning to realize what is going on. Obviously I support a VERY LIMITED amount of environmental legislation, but not these huge government handouts and restrictive measures.

 

[flogger]

I actually have two ideas that go along with the environment.

First of all if these green technologies that we hear the President speak of are really as good as he makes them out to be, why aren't the oil tycoons and other upper class members fighting to get the lead in the field. You can't tell me that if was even half as profitable as we are lead to believe the top 1% wouldn't be all over that and making a profit on it already

Exactly. And those 'hated' fossil fuel companies certainly are the ones with the resources to speculate on this technology with if they thought it worked. If it was even remotely profitable they would be there in a flash

Obviously these green technologies are not as fruitful endeavors as were once believed. Granted, it might be the market and the economy, but that does not constitute the government handing out money to whomever they feel deserving to start these businesses.

People are starting to wake up the fact that the idealism of these shiny new green projects is no substitute for their continued lack of economic viability

The second point is that people will eventually begin to realize that we are destroying all that we have, that is why we have these focus groups and individuals. Eventually we are going to get to a point where something must be done, and it will occur without a government mandate.

We have reached that point already here in the UK with power cuts looming as the government belatedly realises that its coveted renewables projects cannot begin to supply even a fraction of the needs of our economy thats currently being supplied by the prematurely decommissioning fossil fuel power stations

The government interfering in the environment is a valiant idea but in reality we will reach the point that people will do the right thing for the environment without Washington DC telling them. Some might argue that it will be too late, but in all honesty we are already turning the corner, people are beginning to realize what is going on. Obviously I support a VERY LIMITED amount of environmental legislation, but not these huge government handouts and restrictive measures

In the UK we are well ahead of you there with massive taxpayer subsidies to renewable generators often worth more than the value of the power generated by them. I've seen my energy bills skyrocket by 40% since 2009 not because of any resource shortage but because of massive tax hikes to cover this farce

 

[flogger]

Environmentalist dogma has a lot to answer for. The UK’s power grid CEO is warning us that our days of reliable electricity are numbered. Because of climate change and renewable energy policies, families, schools, offices, shops, hospitals and factories will just have to get used to consuming electricity when it’s available, not necessarily when they want it or need it.

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri justifies this absurd situation by sermonizing, Unless we live in harmony with nature, unless we are able to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and adopt renewable energy sources, and until we change our lifestyles, the world will increasingly become unfit for human habitation. This is BS

Thus, people in poor countries who never had access to reliable electricity may be denied it even longer, while people in rich countries could soon face new electricity shortages. This is a completely insane situation

Citizens of the world’s poor and emerging economies are told of claims that the greatest threat we face is from manmade climate change. They are wrong. The real threat is from energy starvation policies implemented in the name of preventing climate change.

Everywhere one looks, people are enjoying modern technologies, improving their lives, realizing their dreams. Other people in the developing world want the same opportunities for themselves and their children and they should have them. Every citizen of the world should someday enjoy access to similar levels of energy that people in developed countries enjoy today.

Some people in the west talk about ending their fossil fuel use. But they have not done so and cannot afford to. They talk about switching to wind and solar power. But they can no longer afford massive renewable energy subsidies that destroy two jobs in other sectors of their economy for every “green” job they create.

Whether the world’s poor, must give up their hopes and dreams. And whether they will determine their own futures or the decisions will be made for them, by politicians in other countries who use climate change to justify restricting their access to reliable, affordable energy. Which should they fear most? Climate change that some say might happen 50 or 100 years from now? Or an energy deprived life of continued poverty, misery, disease, and forgotten aspirations today ?

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

Western medicine, technology, modern conveniences, and factory farming has been the worst thing possible for the environment. We need to stop trying to come up with new ways to rape and pollute the world and focusing on getting closer with the planet. I'm sorry, but the planet can't afford to have more third world populations having a higher standard of living. The US should take a hit to its standard of living and stop trying to life third worlders out of poverty and instead redouble our efforts to get condoms and hysterectomies for those peoples.

Also, I am highly offended at the photograph on the article. It is a deliberate attempt to reinforce racist stereotypes of African-Americans around the world being primitive savages.

 

[Deuce]

More horse**** from the right-wing. :roll:

You guys resist regulation that affects harmful emissions, therefore you want people to die of cancer!

 

[flogger]

Western medicine, technology, modern conveniences, and factory farming has been the worst thing possible for the environment. We need to stop trying to come up with new ways to rape and pollute the world and focusing on getting closer with the planet.

I'm sorry but statements like that are just the sort of dangerous anti human green utopian tosh the OP was warning about . Are you too a discple of Paul Ehrlich ?

I'm sorry, but the planet can't afford to have more third world populations having a higher standard of living

Which green diety decided what the Earth could afford ? Who decides who lives and who dies then ?

he US should take a hit to its standard of living and stop trying to life third worlders out of poverty and instead redouble our efforts to get condoms and hysterectomies for those peoples.

It would appear despite all the achievements and success of our species you find them actually worse than valueless requiring a neutering for their own good

Also, I am highly offended at the photograph on the article. It is a deliberate attempt to reinforce racist stereotypes of African-Americans around the world being primitive savages

For the record I'm a Briton who finds stereotypes of African Americans just as repugnant as you. I'm astonished by the leap of reasoning that drew to that conclusion, given these tribesmen could have been from any jungle on Earth from Borneo to Bolivia !

You guys resist regulation that affects harmful emissions, therefore you want people to die of cancer!

No I resist green eugenics programmes dressed up as environmentalism

 

[Deuce]

No I resist green eugenics programmes dressed up as environmentalism

:lamo

Really are getting desperate, aren't they? Countdown to godwin...

 

[flogger]

:lamo

Really are getting desperate, aren't they? Countdown to godwin...

Well for example the DDT ban alone predicated upon the ramblings of environmentalist Rachel Carson in the sixties has to date cost at least 50 million completely avoidable malaria deaths. Thats about the same as the entire casualties from WW2 which has to date been the most destructive conflict in history. You just need to read the extreme comments of AtlantaAdonis above to see that there is support for such anti human methods and that for some the Earth is just too precious and fragile for us to be allowed to exist on it in anything other than in greatly diminished numbers and wretched medieval squalor

If you have nothing of constructive merit to add then why post at all ? :roll:

 

[Sherman123]

The Green and environmental movement has this obsession with limits to everything, we are consuming too much they wail, people in the developed nations need 4 planet Earths to meet their current consumption levels.

This desire to limit everything is the same primitive thought response that has stopped many of the so called primitive tribes from ever evolving beyond, the hard hand to mouth existence they have known for thousands of years.

This hard drudge of a life is the dream of ecomentalists like David Suzuki, long time human hater Paul Ehrlich who wants to kill off 80% of humans while making sure the remaining 19.99% live in abject poverty. The other 0.01% can continue with 21st Century life as normal, because someone has to be in charge and self appointed Green environmentalists always know best

The pessimism of Environmentalism devalues and distorts the natural human desire to progress as greed and destruction, something that must be prevented, and failing that punished.

One discovers when engaging alarmists that it is more about the background narrative and belief system that people make an emotional commitment to than it is about factual evidence or rational/empirical science. This limits perspective and continues as a leading threat to human development and progress toward a better future

The narrative follows that natural human desire for a better life, and the use of resources that this requires, is the cause of nature’s destruction; it leads to the exhaustion of limited resources. Earth must be saved from this destroying vermin that does not respect the sacred limits of life .

Limits thinking has been an essential element in the environmental narrative of imminent apocalypse that has become lodged in the public consciousness over the past decades. And consequently it has inspired endless obstruction of human endeavor to create a better life for all. An endeavor that needs abundant and inexpensive energy supplies. The rabid resistance to current gas fracking technologies is a case in point despite their far lower pollution footprint

These elite environmentalists, having attained a comfortable standard of living, now want others to refrain from the same levels of success and development. Through a centralized program of coerced redistribution and reversed development they would return all of humanity to levels of primitivism and poverty last known worldwide centuries ago.

This environmental narrative is profoundly anti-human because it is anti-progress, anti-success, and anti-development and growth.

The point to remember is that every aspect of the Green Dream program be it renewable energy, saving whales, hugging trees or molesting Bugs Bunny is inexorably linked to stifling human progress and aspiration, and ultimately culling us, to protect what they regard as their planet.

Environmentalist Thinking Is All About Limits & Hating People | Tory Aardvark

Goes to the core of my problems with the Green movement (though I don't agree with every particular of what you're saying). I figured since its so similar to a discussion that got going in another thread I'd just copy paste what I had there:

My number one problem with environmentalists and to be fair more specifically the modern Green movement is the tendency to see humanity and modern civilization as a problem instead of intrinsically valuable and/or part of the solution. Neo-Malthusianism is particularly prone to this perspective. It's proponents seem fundamentally unwilling to accept the essential and primary role that human ingenuity must play in alleviating our problems, instead they fetishize restriction and the need to dramatically alter our society.

Take the consumption of resources and over-population, the big thing for Ehrlich and his crew in the 60's-90's. We heard for years about how we were doomed to a resource crush in everything from grain, to water, to copper, to oil & gas. In short collapse was unavoidable. The answer? Population control and state intervention. We needed to adopt measures like China's One Child policy, we needed to provide funding for sterilization efforts, we needed to begin massive intervention to cultivate and safeguard our resources and damn be the organic nature and needs of commercial society. This dismal perspective was encapsulated by the Simon-Ehrlich wager in which Ehrlich bet that the prices of a basked of commodities (copper, chrome, nickel, tungsten, tin) would skyrocket from 1980 to 1990. The high profile bet went in Simon's favor in 1990 as all five commodities fell in value.

Of course they were wrong. As has always happened the needs of civilization (sometimes greased with state support) propelled the changes needed to alleviate ourselves of these problems. We found better ways to reach new caches of resources, we perfected more efficient extraction methods and it doesn't stop with metals, we expanded industrial agriculture and pioneered new methods of crop production with the Green Revolution, we increased access to water by expanding irrigation and digging new aquifers, and on and on.

This remains in my view the prevailing problem of their mind set. In their eyes all too often every new human is another mouth to feed, another body to clothe, another potential problem in waiting. While they should see a new mind, a new member of the labor force, a new leader, a new artist, in other words: potential. For example in the long term I think one of the greatest developments in the history of modern civilization has been the lifting of China from the dregs of the third world. We are only just beginning to feel the impact of millions of new scientists, engineers, and artists. Imagine magnifying that by similar developments in the rest of the developing world and you could transform the planet.

The same types of innovations that lifted us above our problems in the 20th Century will form the blueprint for the 21st. The rise of cheap desalination, innovations in biotechnology and GMO's, more sophisticated extraction methods for rare earths and other minerals, new deposits of oil and gas, revolutions in battery technology, perhaps even developments in renewables like Solar (not at present), and so much more. We live in a century of fantastic possibility. Our only realistic hope is that our genius measures up to the task. Planning for massive global legislation and controls for carbon, water management, or whatever the issue of the day may be is not only unrealistic but counter-productive as it retards growth which breeds the dynamism that allows that aforementioned genius to rise to the surface.

 

[Deuce]

Well for example the DDT ban alone predicated upon the ramblings of environmentalist Rachel Carson in the sixties has to date cost at least 50 million completely avoidable malaria deaths. Thats about the same as the entire casualties from WW2 which has to date been the most destructive conflict in history. You just need to read the extreme comments of AtlantaAdonis above to see that there is support for such anti human methods and that for some the Earth is just too precious and fragile for us to be allowed to exist on it in anything other than in greatly diminished numbers and wretched medieval squalor

If you have nothing of constructive merit to add then why post at all ? :roll:

Which part of this thread do you think was constructive in the first place? :lamo

 

[flogger]

Which part of this thread do you think was constructive in the first place? :lamo

Another deeply contemplative and thought provoking input . Where do you get em all ?

 

[Sherman123]

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/greens-and-hunger/?_r=0

A fantastic short article illustrating this point.

 

[Deuce]

Another deeply contemplative and thought provoking input . Where do you get em all ?

You don't get to whine about someone not being constructive when your own post is just basically declaring the other side wants to murder a few billion people. What constructive discussion did you think was going to arise from such a childish start?

You have done nothing constructive or thoughtful.

 

[flogger]

You don't get to whine about someone not being constructive when your own post is just basically declaring the other side wants to murder a few billion people. What constructive discussion did you think was going to arise from such a childish start?

You have done nothing constructive or thoughtful.

Frankly the only parts of this thread that have been pointless are the ones you have contributed too. Once you choose to materially contribute something of merit about the points being made here then perhaps we can move on

 

[Northern Light]

Frankly the only parts of this thread that have been pointless are the ones you have contributed too. Once you choose to materially contribute something of merit about the points being made here then perhaps we can move on

 

[flogger]

View attachment 67154753

Errr .... thanks for that. . Its good to see someone has got the point I was trying to make with my previous post. I occasionally have one over the odds too :drink

 

[Mithrae]

Well for example the DDT ban alone predicated upon the ramblings of environmentalist Rachel Carson in the sixties has to date cost at least 50 million completely avoidable malaria deaths.

DDT - A Brief History and Status | Pesticides | US EPA
"Since 1996, EPA has been participating in international negotiations to control the use of DDT and other persistent organic pollutants used around the world. Under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, countries joined together and negotiated a treaty to enact global bans or restrictions on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which includes DDT, known as the Stockholm Convention on POPs. The Convention includes a limited exemption for the use of DDT to control mosquitoes which are vectors that carry malaria - a disease that still kills millions of people worldwide.

In September 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared its support for the indoor use of DDT in African countries where malaria remains a major health problem, citing that benefits of the pesticide outweigh the health and environmental risks. This is consistent with the Stockholm Convention on POPs, which bans DDT for all uses except for malaria control.

DDT is one of 12 pesticides recommended by the WHO for indoor residual spray programs. It is up to countries to decide whether or not to use DDT. EPA works with other agencies and countries to advise them on how DDT programs are developed and monitored, with the goal that DDT be used only within the context of Integrated Vector Management programs, and that it be kept out of agricultural sectors."


Your source that, contrary to this information, DDT was in fact banned for malaria control, that the ban has caused at least 50 million deaths, and that those deaths were "completely avoidable"?

 

[flogger]

Not a chance ! I've been called a 'liar' once too often by you to be remotely interested in engaging you.:bolt

I'll be more than happy to provide that info for anyone else who asks though .

 

[Moot]

I actually have two ideas that go along with the environment.

First of all if these green technologies that we hear the President speak of are really as good as he makes them out to be, why aren't the oil tycoons and other upper class members fighting to get the lead in the field....<snip>.....

Well, the military seems to think green energy is a great idea and are pumping billions into developing solar energy. Apparently, not only will it be more cost effective but it will save lives.....


Exploding Fuel Tankers Driving U.S. Army to Solar Power - Bloomberg

"....The U.S. Army is spending billions of dollars shifting toward solar energy, recycled water and better-insulated tents. The effort isn’t about saving the Earth.

Instead, commanders have found they can save lives through energy conservation. It’s especially true in Afghanistan, where protecting fuel convoys is one of the most dangerous jobs, with one casualty for every 24 missions in some years.

With renewable energy, “there is no supply chain vulnerability, there are no commodity costs and there’s a lower chance of disruption,” Richard Kidd, the deputy assistant secretary of the Army in charge of energy security, said in an interview. “A fuel tanker can be shot at and blown up. The sun’s rays will still be there.”

While President Barack Obama called on the U.S. government to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 28 percent by 2020, the Army is embracing renewables to make the business of war safer for soldiers. In May, it announced plans to spend $7 billion buying electricity generated by solar, wind, geothermal and biomass projects over the next three decades.

The transition is a sales opportunity for companies including Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), which is installing small-scale power systems at U.S. bases, along with Alta Devices Inc. and Sundial Capital Partners, which make sun-powered systems. The moves threaten U.S. utilities, which stand to lose revenue when the Army shifts to photovoltaic panels from traditional power sources....

The oil tycoons are beside themselves to see one their largest consumers go green.

 

[Mithrae]

Not a chance ! I've been called a 'liar' once too often by you to be remotely interested in engaging you.:bolt

I'll be more than happy to provide that info for anyone else who asks though .

...because of your decision not to provide evidence for your dubious claims - responding first with silence and then with misdirection. But as you wish; 'til then I reckon I'll trust the WHO on whether or not malaria deaths are "completely avoidable" as you claim.

 

[flogger]

...because of your decision not to provide evidence for your dubious claims - responding first with silence and then with misdirection. But as you wish; 'til then I reckon I'll trust the WHO on whether or not malaria deaths are "completely avoidable" as you claim.

And I'll reckon you just confirmed my reasons for not responding !

 

[flogger]

Well, the military seems to think green energy is a great idea and are pumping billions into developing solar energy. Apparently, not only will it be more cost effective but it will save lives.....
Exploding Fuel Tankers Driving U.S. Army to Solar Power - Bloomberg
The oil tycoons are beside themselves to see one their largest consumers go green.

Given the US military are by far the most profligate and unaccountable spenders of taxpayer cash on Earth then why does this not surprise me ?

 

[Moot]

Given the US military are by far the most profligate and unaccountable spenders of taxpayer cash on Earth then why does this not surprise me ?

Nevertheless, green energy is getting implemented and funded for the next thirty years and will be here to stay long after the oil is gone.

 

[Deuce]

Frankly the only parts of this thread that have been pointless are the ones you have contributed too. Once you choose to materially contribute something of merit about the points being made here then perhaps we can move on

The points being made that environmentalists are basically nazis? No, I don't have anything to contribute to that. Thanks, though!