Environmentalism is now primarily about stifling basic human aspiration

[Gaugingcatenate]

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.

Don't you feel guilty using this power just to assert your opinion? Is that not a waste that could be contributed to others that actually are in need, to survive? And what about the biodegradability of that computer you are using...my god, how long will it be sitting is some unsightly dump, battery leaking into the ground water probably...oh the humanity....

You are offended by the photo in the article and yet state that you personally do not think 3rd worlders should have a higher standard of living...is that not reinforcing some kind of racist stereotype in itself?

Just saying....

 

[Deuce]

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 ?

Seems to me that things exploding is a pretty solid reason to try something less explodey if you're the military. Or anyone else, actually.

Except for the things the military wants to make explode. They do that on purpose sometimes. Those things you want to be more explodey.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

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

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

Funny, the average life span in 1900 was like 43 years...now its almost double that...somehow I think we are kinda going in the right direction as regards harm vs help to humans... and countering those things that would harm our health.

 

[Mithrae]

Regarding the OP, I would guess that "basic human aspirations" consist of satisfying our desires for survival, sex, procreation, recreation and socializing. I don't see anything there that necessarily entails continued destruction or over-exploitation of natural environments. Even in the case of reproduction, many developed countries in recent decades have seen declines in fertility rate (due in part to the availability of sexual education, contraceptives and female empowerment, and lower mortality rates; parents can lavish their affection on a single child with little risk of losing it).

'Environmentalist' notions like reducing consumption and reusing or recycling used products where possible are simply good financial sense. The contrary view - that greater consumption means greater happiness, or that more spending and wastefulness are desirable indicators of affluence - are certainly the kinds of messages with which we are bombarded by advertisers from childhood up. But I don't see anything particularly "anti-human" about not buying into the propaganda of those whose sole aim is to make more money for themselves by selling stuff to us.

Like it or not, we live on a finite planet, and Mr. Aardvark's railing against the fact of those limitations (and those bright enough to recognise 'em) doesn't change anything. Numerous historically noted economists from Adam Smith down through John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes and onwards have recognised not only the inevitability, but ultimately the desirability of a general halt to economic growth. There are more important things in life than accumulating (and soon disposing of) more and more possessions skilfully marketted to us, and certainly more important things than the prodigious accumulation of wealth for a small percentage of the world's population. As John Stuart Mill put it:

"...a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the art of living, and much more likelihood of it being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on."

 

[gslack]

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.

The western society? Like those things only happen elsewhere .. Got it... It's other people who did it.. You didn't do it.. They did.. LOL.. I'm sure you haven't eaten anything from those farms either..

And you're being a bit overly sensitive and reading too much into things.. The article was about the effect "green movement policies" will effect the 3rd world and poor. I think a tribal culture in AFrica could qualify as both.. There was no "hidden" racial inference...

 

[flogger]

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

Well the term envirofascism would seem apt as to date they have certainly been directly or indirectly responsible for more deaths than the Nazi 's due to things they have or would like to have imposed upon us. Here is the appalling human cost of just one of their 'victories'

This is a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph occurred in the middle part of the 20th century, when the larger part of mankind finally succeeded in overcoming the ravages of malaria, the deadly infectious disease that had afflicted the human race since the dawn of time (and which, by one estimate, had killed approximately half the people who had ever lived on earth). But within three decades, the triumph would give way to tragedy when leftist ideologues, professing concern for the integrity of the natural environment, collaborated to ban the use of the pesticide best known by the acronym DDT—the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish malaria from vast portions of the globe. By means of that ban, environmentalists effectively ensured that, over the course of the ensuing 30+ years, more than 50 million people would die needlessly of a disease that was entirely preventable.

Malaria Victims: How Environmentalist Ban on DDT Caused 50 Million Deaths - Discover the Networks

 

[Mithrae]

Interesting read. So it seems

> The US ban on DDT in 1972 included exemption for health-related use, though malaria had been (almost?) eliminated in the US by that point
> There has never been a universal ban on DDT
> The only worldwide restrictions on DDT were implemented in 2001, and again specifically permit its use for malaria control

Yet somehow you claimed that "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."

Presumably because (from your source)
"Since the 1972 U.S. ban on DDT, more than 50 million people—about 90 percent of whom resided in sub-Saharan Africa, and most of whom were children younger than five—have died of malaria."

So because DDT was banned in a country where malaria was no longer an issue, all malaria deaths worldwide since then are the fault of environmentalists?

You might've been better off keeping your sources secret :lol:



Edit:
Incidentally, while it's great how many references that site provides to confirm its claims and sources, many of the ones I particularly wanted to check up on led to the rather dubious junkscience.com - and they were dead links to boot. Others (such as claims that USAID or the World Bank threatened to cut funding to countries still using DDT) lead to equally dubious sources. And some claims are manifestly false, such as this:
"In the 1990s, for instance, the Clinton Administration stipulated that the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement would be contingent upon Mexico’s willingness to stop its production of DDT. When Mexico ultimately agreed to abandon its DDT programs, its malaria rates increased exponentially."

It's true that the NAFTA (initiated under Bush's term of office) required the other states to abide by many of the US' environmental policies: But the use of DDT was to be phased out by 2002; the treaty was implemented in January 1994; and it was not until some three years later that malaria rates increased in Mexico, and that was due to the effects of hurricane Pauline. Even with the phasing out of DDT usage,
"Mexico is categorized in the pre-elimination phase by the World Health Organization (WHO) and has experienced an 83 percent decrease in reported malaria cases between 2000 and 2010, from 7,390 cases to 1,226 cases."

Your source also neglects to mention that declining use of DDT in many countries (eg. Sri Lanka in the 1970s) was due to the resistance of mosquitoes - and that might very well be attributable to the previous over-use, for example, in agriculture. There may well have been incorrect claims and over-zealous campaigning by some in evironmentalist organisations, from what little I've looked into the matter; but they seem to have been of rather limited and late effectiveness, and not entirely ungrounded.

 

[flogger]

These quotes could be simply dismissed as those from extremists and cranks were they not made by prominent and influential people often in positions of power. Its disturbing just how much they hate our species

Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Quote by Club of Rome "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Quote by UK's Keith Farnish, environmental writer, philosopher and activist: "The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization...Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine."

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

Quote by Club of Rome: "The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."

Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer."

Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: "The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing."

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

These are just a few . Sadly there are many more

C3: Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters

 

[Mithrae]

These quotes could be simply dismissed as those from extremists and cranks were they not made by prominent and influential people often in positions of power. Its disturbing just how much they hate our species

Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Quote by Club of Rome "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

...or they could be dismissed as wholly fictitious.

Having been previously kicked out of Greenpeace, Paul Watson may have harboured some sour grapes in any case: But the quote is attributed to a 1991 smear article in Forbes magazine - which in my brief time here I've already discovered to be perhaps even worse than the Daily Mail or Telegraph in its blatant anti-environmentalism - with no earlier attribution that I can see from a brief glance.

I can't even be bothered trying to trace down or substantiate the second quote. Like the first, the honest, objective folk at Climate Conservative Consumer have heavily editted out the bits which give any semblance of context or meaning. So has another anti-environmentalist user of Wikipedia, but even this editted version shows that the quote is about government beaurocratic pandering more than anything else:
"We routinely wrote scare stories about the hazards of chemicals, employing words like “cancer,” and “birth defects” to splash a little cold water in reporters’ faces... Our press reports were more or less true... Few handouts, however, can be completely honest, and ours were no exception... We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Third time's a charm, perhaps? Unfortunately not; this is the worst yet. Again the good conservatives at C3 have mixed and mangled things up a bit, but broadly speaking this quote (unlike the others) is actually attributed to a specific source! (Here's a couple of examples of this attribution.) Unfortunately when you actually search through that source - and as always, I do encourage you to actually research the things you post about - The First Global Revolution says nothing whatsoever of the sort. From two searches (for 'shortages' and 'intervention') here are the closest matches I found:
"Environmental pollution, runaway population growth, food and energy shortages, and geopolitical upheavals make the future prospects of the world seem very bleak."

"They [market mechanisms] cannot by themselves solve problems related to energy, environment, fundamental research, or fairness. Only public intervention, based on political processes and often using market mechanisms as instruments of public policy, can deal with these problems."

Chilling stuff

You are learning, which is good; you actually provided a source for your claims this time 'round! But if your source is an openly partisan list of quote-mined soundbites editted and posted out of context with no attribution whatsoever, it still doesn't do us a whole lot of good. Given these initial examples, I think we can safely ignore the rest of your list unless you do your own homework, and substantiate them as genuine.



I really have to ask though: If you are so hell-bent on believing that the 'other side' are full of scare-mongers, misanthropes and propagandists, what exactly is it that makes you think 'your side' is only ever honest and objective? Why do you place so much trust in these sources, without ever double-checking them?

 

[flogger]

...I really have to ask though: If you are so hell-bent on believing that the 'other side' are full of scare-mongers, misanthropes and propagandists

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck etc etc

, what exactly is it that makes you think 'your side' is only ever honest and objective? Why do you place so much trust in these sources, without ever double-checking them

What delicious irony from someone using Wikipedia as validation ! :lamo, sorry but I've fed you enough already :bolt

 

[Mithrae]

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck etc etc

what exactly is it that makes you think 'your side' is only ever honest and objective? Why do you place so much trust in these sources, without ever double-checking them

What delicious irony from someone using Wikipedia as validation ! :lamo, sorry but I've fed you enough already :bolt

I knew you couldn't resist! :2wave:

I think this could be the start of a long and beautiful friendship. You noted, perhaps, that the Wikipedia user I referenced was an anti-environmentalist, or at least anti-AGW? If anyone can edit Wikipedia (albeit briefly, before absurd changes are restored to the original state... you understand how it works, don't you?) or join its community of users, that includes 'your side' too. Claims of a strong bias one way or the other ring a little hollow in that light



To give you a bit of an idea that I don't place any undue trust in my own 'side,' let me take you through a bit of my writing process for post #32 above, the one about DDT.

I vaguely recalled that one of my personal heroes, George Monbiot (beyond the common idol-figures like Gandhi, Mandela and so on, the only other personal hero I'd especially name is C. S. Lewis) had written about DDT in the past. So knowing that he generally provides ample referencing for his information, I searched his site and a couple of articles caught my eye. This one is actually about other pesticides, using DDT only as a comparison; it would be fair to say that he demonises it somewhat, and I remain undecided whether that's a fair assessment, though I'm leaning towards the negative. But this article was precisely what I was looking for, part of his dispute with a fellow making pretty much the same claims as you posted.

But I did not use George Monbiot as a source. I checked up his source, the one which most interested me at least, an article in Prospect magazine purporting to highlight the roots of a corporate scare campaign demonising environmentalists on the DDT issue. But whether or not its information is more accurate than the DDT source you provided, that Prospect article does not provide further referencing for its claims. So I didn't use that as a source either.

In fact in my post I used only two tidbits of information from that article: That after it's initial successful fight against malaria with DDT, Sri Lanka's later resurgence of the disease was hampered by the mosquitoes' resistance to the pesticide - a claim which I found broadly confirmed in a peer-reviewed scientific article. I asserted that claim in my post #32. And the corporate ties of Steve Milloy, owner of junkscience.com from which many of your sources' claims were referenced - a claim broadly confirmed by Wikipedia. I did not make that claim in my post #32, merely expressed scepticism of that source, particularly since they are now-dead links.



See the difference there? You post your obviously partisan sources, apparently without double-checking them and (in the case of DDT) perhaps without even reading the full article to notice the utterly absurd reasoning employed - that because DDT was banned in a country where malaria was no longer a concern, all malaria deaths worldwide since then are the fault of environmentalists!

I find a source which I've grown to trust in a decade of use... and yet I double check his source... then triple-check and only partially employ even its claims!

For what it's worth, after finishing my reply in post #32, I counted some 14 tabs of webpages which I closed, some of which had visited several sites :lol: And still I consider it "what little I've looked into the matter." I hardly expect anyone else to go to those absurd lengths. Debating is one of my main hobbies, and I'm in it as much for the opportunities and motivation for learning as for the joy of crushing my enemies beneath my sandalled feet and rejoicing in the lamentation of his womenfolk.

But surely, before making such extreme or even vicious accusations against other folk, you could at least do a little double-checking of your facts?



Edit: Trying to re-find the Monbiot pages I earlier visited, I also stumbled across this broader account of his encounter with Stewart Brand. I haven't checked his sources there, but if you remain interested in the DDT issue you might like to: As I'd earlier suspected in my double-checking of your sources, Mr. Monbiot's sources (allegedly) disprove the claims in your source that USAID, WHO and so on ever tried to oppose the use of DDT through pecuniary measures. The whole affair is actually remarkably analogous to our discussion, and as you might notice if you're curious enough to read, Monbiot is a personal hero not so much for his opinions as for his emphasis on the confirmation of claims and admission of errors (he's admitted a few of his own in his time) which are necessary for intellectual integrity and growth.

 

[flogger]

Damn it you got me and I broke my own rule too and fed you too ... grrrr

 

[Deuce]

Funny, the average life span in 1900 was like 43 years...now its almost double that...somehow I think we are kinda going in the right direction as regards harm vs help to humans... and countering those things that would harm our health.

1) That statistic is skewed somewhat by infant mortality. If you made it past 5, you were probably making it to 60.
2) This occurred because of the advancement of science and education. Not running away from what the science has been telling us.
3) You missed the point.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

1) That statistic is skewed somewhat by infant mortality. If you made it past 5, you were probably making it to 60.
2) This occurred because of the advancement of science and education. Not running away from what the science has been telling us.
3) You missed the point.

1. The statistic isn't skewed, it was from improvements that children made it through those critical years. I remember visiting graveyards behind the churches in Cades Cove in the Smoky Mountains as a kid...and seeing all the small graves...all those kids that were not allowed to live near a full life...times are better.
2. Who is for running away from science, our side uses science to improve life, not worrying so much about things we cannot control. We need to be good stewards, but we don't have to be environmental totalitarians either, draconian anything is probably not particularly good.
3. That's what everyone says when they are wrong...

 

[Deuce]

1. The statistic isn't skewed, it was from improvements that children made it through those critical years. I remember visiting graveyards behind the churches in Cades Cove in the Smoky Mountains as a kid...and seeing all the small graves...all those kids that were not allowed to live near a full life...times are better.
2. Who is for running away from science, our side uses science to improve life, not worrying so much about things we cannot control. We need to be good stewards, but we don't have to be environmental totalitarians either, draconian anything is probably not particularly good.
3. That's what everyone says when they are wrong...

I'll spell it out for you:

Declaring that the other side is basically Hitler is not a meaningful discussion. When you simply decide that the other side has comic book villain motivations, you aren't thinking like a rational person. The OP has done this. I was attempting to demonstrate this by simply declaring you like cancer.

You like cancer. You can claim statistics about increased life expectancy, but you're still arguing for a side that is arguing for fewer environmental regulations. This causes more cancer. Therefore you want more cancer.

Please continue my very productive and rational discussion.

 

[joko104]

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.

Are you volunteering to end your life for the environment? Oh trying to declare others should die? :roll:

 

[joko104]

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.

If that isn't a pure hate-women sexist message if there ever has been one. For men, you want condoms. For women, you want "hysterectomies." How outrageous. PLEASE post that you've had yourself castrated to demonstrate your message isn't total self-declared male-superiority sexist hypocrisy.

 

[flogger]

I'll spell it out for you:

Declaring that the other side is basically Hitler is not a meaningful discussion. When you simply decide that the other side has comic book villain motivations, you aren't thinking like a rational person. The OP has done this. I was attempting to demonstrate this by simply declaring you like cancer.

You like cancer. You can claim statistics about increased life expectancy, but you're still arguing for a side that is arguing for fewer environmental regulations. This causes more cancer. Therefore you want more cancer.

Please continue my very productive and rational discussion.

I'll spell it out for you even more simply. The benefits of modern society based on industrial manufacturing have vastly improved human longevity and quality of life yet this is what environmentalists oppose at any and every turn. Those collateral cancers that so concern you are as nothing compared to the huge benefits we enjoy from the society we have so painstakingly created.

I dont feel guilty about that much as these eco gloomers demand I must

 

[jmotivator]

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.

It's amazing how you can post on the world wide web from the middle of the forest by simply rubbing two sticks together. :roll:

How about YOU give up western medicine and the internet and the roof over your head?

Didn't think so.

 

[mbig]

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 ?

PLAGIARIZED by flogger from the Second Sentence Down from:

What Really Threatens Our Future? - Willie Soon - Page full

The first sentence only added in an attempt to hide it.

 

[flogger]

PLAGIARIZED by flogger from the Second Sentence Down from:

What Really Threatens Our Future? - Willie Soon - Page full

The first sentence only added in an attempt to hide it.

Thank you for pointing out that omission ! :doh If I could re edit it by linking it I would . Did you actually get the point that was being made with it more importantly ?

 

[gslack]

It's amazing how you can post on the world wide web from the middle of the forest by simply rubbing two sticks together. :roll:

How about YOU give up western medicine and the internet and the roof over your head?

Didn't think so.

And that's the main problem with eco-mentalists..They are all ready to talk, shout, and protest because it's a hypothetical to them. It's safe to rage against fossil fuels, big oil, and corporations and their machinations that nobody can really do without because nobody can do without them.. Sure they talk a good game, but they don't have to live a life without those things. The best they will do is perhaps "limit" themselves so they feel better. But as soon as they do, they have to go and tell everybody using the internet and driving their car, going to coffee shops owned by huge corporations and hanging out with other like-minded people and talk about how small their carbon footprint is and how evil corporations are.. Starbucks has made billions off them,and made billions more since they adopted their "green" public image..

A fine example... John Travolta, a good actor who doesn't stop being an actor ever. He has his own fully functional airstrip at his house, flies himself all over the planet on a whim in either his 707 or smaller private jet, or even his smaller cesna, and yet drives a prius to the hollywood awards ceremonies and talks about "saving the planet"... Don't you think his jumbo jet trips hauling just himself and family about, does more harm than any car he could drive?

But like most warmers, he's about how something looks more than how it actually is..

 

[flogger]

And that's the main problem with eco-mentalists..They are all ready to talk, shout, and protest because it's a hypothetical to them. It's safe to rage against fossil fuels, big oil, and corporations and their machinations that nobody can really do without because nobody can do without them.. Sure they talk a good game, but they don't have to live a life without those things. The best they will do is perhaps "limit" themselves so they feel better. But as soon as they do, they have to go and tell everybody using the internet and driving their car, going to coffee shops owned by huge corporations and hanging out with other like-minded people and talk about how small their carbon footprint is and how evil corporations are.. Starbucks has made billions off them,and made billions more since they adopted their "green" public image..

A fine example... John Travolta, a good actor who doesn't stop being an actor ever. He has his own fully functional airstrip at his house, flies himself all over the planet on a whim in either his 707 or smaller private jet, or even his smaller cesna, and yet drives a prius to the hollywood awards ceremonies and talks about "saving the planet"... Don't you think his jumbo jet trips hauling just himself and family about, does more harm than any car he could drive?

But like most warmers, he's about how something looks more than how it actually is..

The one that really made me laugh was the late Paul Newman who drove a Prius before his death despite part owning the Newman/Haas Indycar racing team ! :lol:

 

[ecofarm]

PLAGIARIZED by flogger from the Second Sentence Down from:

What Really Threatens Our Future? - Willie Soon - Page full

The first sentence only added in an attempt to hide it.

He also added "This is BS." to the second paragraph.

 

[ecofarm]

The one that really made me laugh was the late Paul Newman who drove a Prius before his death despite part owning the Newman/Haas Indycar racing team ! :lol:

Why can't someone be a racing fan and an environmentalist? Your false mutual exclusivity is a pathetic attempt at politically driven demonization.


Fwiw, the brand "Newman's Own" is organic and donates all profits to children's charities.