Is Anyone Else Here Not an "Environmentalist"?

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I'm in disagreement with the whole environmentalist movement, I think class struggle and union action are far more important than saving the whales or whatever. Here's what I think when it comes to the environment:
-Pollution is going to happen. We shouldn't get to the point where you have to wear masks like in China, but I don't think we should cut it down to the point where we are making huge sacrifices in our daily lives
-Species are going to go extinct. I don't really give a fuck about the whales or the polar bears. Species have gone extinct before humans were around and will continue to go extinct
-I'm not worried about climate change. Climate change has also happened before, and florida is a shitty state anyways.
-I don't think cars with low gas mileage are evil. Sure, Hummers are ugly as fuck, but you won't catch me drivin no prius.
-I agree with environmentalism that benefits humans, but environmentalism just for the sake of environmentalism I disagree with
Thats all I can think of right now, is anyone here in agreement with me or am I the only non environmentalist?

[Abc]

its hard to have class struggle and union action with out a atmosphere

[GPDP]

-I agree with environmentalism that benefits humans, but environmentalism just for the sake of environmentalism I disagree with

This is pretty much my stance. So long as environmentalism entails preventing a complete environmental collapse that could spell doom for millions of people, I am an environmentalist. However, once we start getting into tree-hugging bollocks, I tune out.

I have a cousin who's a hardcore environmentalist, and I find his ideas and "politics" very silly. He doesn't care about the environment out of concern for our need to have a livable planet - as far as I can tell, people don't factor into his environmentalist concerns. In fact, he seems to have a contempt for people altogether (he once told me he wouldn't mind if humanity died off). He want to protect the environment because he wants to save the earth, presumably from ourselves.

Needless to say, such green liberal bullshit rubs me the wrong way sometimes.

[Durruti's Ghost]

-Species are going to go extinct. I don't really give a fuck about the whales or the polar bears. Species have gone extinct before humans were around and will continue to go extinct


True, but there are real, tangible benefits to preventing species from going extinct. There have been cures for deadly diseases that have only been discovered as the result of the discovery of new species. For this reason also, massive climate change would probably be a bad thing, as it could lead to the destruction of thousands of undiscovered species.

[Abc]

-Pollution is going to happen. We shouldn't get to the point where you have to wear masks like in China, but I don't think we should cut it down to the point where we are making huge sacrifices in our daily livesummm is it not best to start doing something BEFORE we get like china rather then wait till we are all in gas masks then say "ok now lets do something"

-Species are going to go extinct. I don't really give a fuck about the whales or the polar bears. Species have gone extinct before humans were around and will continue to go extincthttp://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/25/Picard_Facepalm_lo.jpg
Creatures that took millions of years to evolve sould go extinct so some japanese guy can have his whale meat hamburger...

-I'm not worried about climate change. Climate change has also happened before, and florida is a shitty state anyways.Yea ignore everything scientists say about climate change...because i mean you know WAYYY more then anybody who spend his entire life studying the climate

-I don't think cars with low gas mileage are evil. Sure, Hummers are ugly as fuck, but you won't catch me drivin no prius. i accually agree with you here. alot of this green stuff is bullshit just to make cheaper stuff, like i go buy a CD and find that its in a flimsy paper case rather then a plastic and there excuse is "New eco-friendly case!" or go to buy a bottle of water and find that it now has 20% less water in it because they made the bottle smaller under the excuse "Now with 20% less plastic!" thats the liberal bullshit i'm tired of. but wanting to save a spieces thats been around for millions of years, or wanting to stop the rainforest from being cut down because it houses 1000s of unique creatures as well as many native tribes who depend on it for survivual is not "liberal bullshit".

[GPDP]

For a good look into what environmentalism should focus on (as well as a critique of bourgeois capitalist "environmentalism," which is based more on neo-classical economics than actual hard science) from a socialist point of view, I recommend the following article by Richard York, Brett Clark, and John Bellamy Foster from Monthly Review:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/090501-york-clark-foster.php

Hell, anything by John Bellamy Foster on the environment is great. We need more socialist contributions on the environmentalist discourse, and he goes a long way to advance such a position. I'm actually thinking of getting his latest book (http://www.amazon.com/Ecological-Revolution-Making-Peace-Planet/dp/158367179X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252219800&sr=1-3).

[9]

Liberal environmentalists completely miss the point. You can't have "environmentally-friendly" capitalism. And this is ignoring the fact that they see protecting trees and gorillas as taking precedence over protecting exploited workers, which is pretty sick, in my opinion. But then again, I suppose it is to be expected from this sort of mindset, as misanthropy seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy in the majority of cases.
Ultimately, my position on environmentalism is not dissimilar to GDPD's.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm in disagreement with the whole environmentalist movement, I think class struggle and union action are far more important than saving the whales or whatever. Here's what I think when it comes to the environment:
-Pollution is going to happen. We shouldn't get to the point where you have to wear masks like in China, but I don't think we should cut it down to the point where we are making huge sacrifices in our daily lives

This is why I disagree with most environmentalists on the issue of nuclear power, which can provide large amounts of energy for a long time with relatively little pollution.


-Species are going to go extinct. I don't really give a fuck about the whales or the polar bears. Species have gone extinct before humans were around and will continue to go extinct

I think the concentration on "iconic" species rather than on preserving biodversity is bad environmentalism, myself.


-I'm not worried about climate change. Climate change has also happened before, and florida is a shitty state anyways.

The problem is that it's not just rich areas like Florida that will be affected - places like Bangladesh and Fiji will also feel the effects of climate change.


-I don't think cars with low gas mileage are evil. Sure, Hummers are ugly as fuck, but you won't catch me drivin no prius.

Private ownership of motor vehicles is massively inefficient - about 95% of the time they're just sitting on the kerb or driveway or other parking spot. It would be much better if one could borrow a vehicle from a communal garage, but even then there's still the problem that such a system would burn pollutive and increasingly scarce fossil fuels.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

ummm is it not best to start doing something BEFORE we get like china rather then wait till we are all in gas masks then say "ok now lets do something"
I agree


Creatures that took millions of years to evolve sould go extinct so some japanese guy can have his whale meat hamburger...
I dont really care.


Yea ignore everything scientists say about climate change...because i mean you know WAYYY more then anybody who spend his entire life studying the climate

I don't think most scientist think the sky is falling because of climate change, I thought they think we causing it but they aint even sure. And its like 2 degrees every hundred years even if we are, I aint shittin my pants over that

[QUOTE=Billy Mays;1537970] i accually agree with you here. alot of this green stuff is bullshit just to make cheaper stuff, like i go buy a CD and find that its in a flimsy paper case rather then a plastic and there excuse is "New eco-friendly case!" or go to buy a bottle of water and find that it now has 20% less water in it because they made the bottle smaller under the excuse "Now with 20% less plastic!" thats the liberal bullshit i'm tired of. but wanting to save a spieces thats been around for millions of years, or wanting to stop the rainforest from being cut down because it houses 1000s of unique creatures as well as many native tribes who depend on it for survivual is not "liberal bullshit".

If its being used by humans, I don't think the rainforrest should be cut down, but I don't care about a species that doesn't benefit us humans.

[Abc]

If its being used by humans, I don't think the rainforrest should be cut down, but I don't care about a species that doesn't benefit us humans.
the problem is a species we may think is worthless now may have propertys that could be VERY valuable later on, Unfortunately if we go with your idea of chopping it down so farmers can graze there cattle we will never know. also may i ask why you think human beings are so high and mighty when we are just highly evolved animals. it would be interesting if a alien civilization far more evolved then us decided to kill us all for meat. while compeletly hypothetical, according to many of the posts above it would be perfectly fine or do you have double standards about your own species being killed for the profit of another?

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I think our species is the shit, but if an advanced alien species did that we would have to adapt evolve or die out. Thats how nature works. Its always interesting when a vegan primitivist tells us that we should act more like animals.

[Abc]

wow good response, i'm surprised :laugh: but i'm not a vegan primitivist (i'm using a computer and eating beef jerky) i just think we sould have some respect for the creatures around us, i personally find creatures stuff such as sharks, wolfs, whales, and bears neat dont want to see them go extinct for stupid reasons, also as i said above about using the envirment recklessly can have unforseen conseqences you dont know if some undicovered frog in the rain forest could hold a cure for cancer

[Revy]

If whales went extinct, that would suck.

Hopefully Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is actually a documentary from the 23rd century, that found its way into the past. Because at the end (SPOILER!!!!) they save the whales.

[Psy]

Private ownership of motor vehicles is massively inefficient - about 95% of the time they're just sitting on the kerb or driveway or other parking spot. It would be much better if one could borrow a vehicle from a communal garage, but even then there's still the problem that such a system would burn pollutive and increasingly scarce fossil fuels.
That would still be more inefficient then railways epically railways with good dispatch, rails offer less friction thus there is less energy loss (with the only downside being much longer breaking distances and slower acceleration form a dead stop).

[kharacter]

This is pretty much my stance. So long as environmentalism entails preventing a complete environmental collapse that could spell doom for millions of people, I am an environmentalist. However, once we start getting into tree-hugging bollocks, I tune out.

I have a cousin who's a hardcore environmentalist, and I find his ideas and "politics" very silly. He doesn't care about the environment out of concern for our need to have a livable planet - as far as I can tell, people don't factor into his environmentalist concerns. In fact, he seems to have a contempt for people altogether (he once told me he wouldn't mind if humanity died off). He want to protect the environment because he wants to save the earth, presumably from ourselves.

Needless to say, such green liberal bullshit rubs me the wrong way sometimes.
I completely agree with one addition. It is true that the main purpose of environmentalism should be human benefit, but I would also like to include the consideration of (not devotion towards) preventing non-human animal suffering.

[thethinkingchimp]

I think conservation is quite important; especially in areas where not all of the species living there have been discovered, or are not fully understood. Nature provides us with examples of organic chemicals that are useful in medicine like chitin, and by studying organic chemicals found in the natural environment we can preform reverse chemical engineering to help develop viable means of synthesizing the useful compounds in the lab. What makes conservation even more important is the fact that some useful organic compounds are so extremely complex that they only cannot yet be synthesized in the lab, and can only be taken from their natural source, like the medicine Paclitaxel, which is used to inhibit uncontrolled cell growth is cancer patients.

[GPDP]

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Protecting and conserving the environment is a worthy ordeal, because there are many things beneficial to human beings within it. But I must stress we must always weigh present and future costs. Do we continue unsustainable patterns of development to raise our standards of living now, though doing so runs the risk of missing out on new discoveries in the natural world or damaging the ecosphere for future generations? Or do we take the future into account when making decisions on economic development, even if it means our present growth will not be quite as rapid?

[OneNamedNameLess]

-Species are going to go extinct. I don't really give a fuck about the whales or the polar bears. Species have gone extinct before humans were around and will continue to go extinct

Many species are very important to the planet and humans though. For instance, bees and other insects are highly resonsible for pollinating much of our food. Allow me to add that flooding and more natural disasters, which you state don't bother you, contradict your views. What about flooding then? All the crops which will be destroyed intensifying food shortages? This is happening now. Majority world nations will starve more, minority world nations will suffer increased living costs. Therefore, if you care about the international working class then you should care about the effects of climate change. I don't mean to use scare tactics either as I don't like them. I'm not talking about 'The Day After Tomorrow' Empire State building high tpye waves which result in floods. I am referring to even minor flooding which can have awful effects on the human race.

[jake williams]

The best scientific evidence available is that a number of environmental issues are an emergency. It could be wrong - it could be, for example, that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world are part of a conspiracy - but it seems to me unlikely. These emergencies give every appearance - and it's tremendously complex science, and since it's impossible to be an expert in every field we have to rely on each other a lot, and make the best interpretations we can - of threatening the very existence of our civilization.

This civilization, personally, is one I'd like to save. I think the problematic sections of the "environmental movement" - which in most cases really is a response to real problems - are precisely those which disagree with civilization. I'm sympathetic but I disagree. However, there's also a more rational response to environmental threats - try to save civilization and a reasonable existence for the human species.

I'm not sure what "anti-environmentalism" is. To me the science is blatantly obvious - there are real threats that we have to deal with. But it seems like much less rational is the idea that we don't need to protect the environment we live in, that it's somehow, what, indestructible? That's irrational. That its destruction (or even damage) wouldn't affect us? That's idiotic.

[bcbm]

And this is ignoring the fact that they see protecting trees and gorillas as taking precedence over protecting exploited workers, which is pretty sick, in my opinion.

What's more sick, in my opinion, is that neither the liberal greens nor much of the revolutionary left can see the connection between the destruction of the rainforest, the exploitation of workers, imperialism, etc.


I don't think most scientist think the sky is falling because of climate change, I thought they think we causing it but they aint even sure. And its like 2 degrees every hundred years even if we are, I aint shittin my pants over that

The general consensus within the scientific community seems to be one of concern. Two degrees may not seem like much, but it can have substantial effects on the planet. Also, the current estimate is actually a change between 6 and 12 degrees F in the next century. What this will mean is higher sea levels, expanding deserts, changing weather patterns that include more extreme weather and undoubtedly some serious effects on agricultural production. All of these have negative consequences for human beings, especially the billions of people living in poverty.


This civilization, personally, is one I'd like to save.

I think that if we don't destroy this civilization, there isn't going to be a lot left to save.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That would still be more inefficient then railways epically railways with good dispatch, rails offer less friction thus there is less energy loss (with the only downside being much longer breaking distances and slower acceleration form a dead stop).

Well, that too. I suppose it depends what sort of urban areas we end up building.

[9]

The best scientific evidence available is that a number of environmental issues are an emergency. It could be wrong - it could be, for example, that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world are part of a conspiracy - but it seems to me unlikely. These emergencies give every appearance - and it's tremendously complex science, and since it's impossible to be an expert in every field we have to rely on each other a lot, and make the best interpretations we can - of threatening the very existence of our civilization.

This civilization, personally, is one I'd like to save. I think the problematic sections of the "environmental movement" - which in most cases really is a response to real problems - are precisely those which disagree with civilization. I'm sympathetic but I disagree. However, there's also a more rational response to environmental threats - try to save civilization and a reasonable existence for the human species.

I'm not sure what "anti-environmentalism" is. To me the science is blatantly obvious - there are real threats that we have to deal with. But it seems like much less rational is the idea that we don't need to protect the environment we live in, that it's somehow, what, indestructible? That's irrational. That its destruction (or even damage) wouldn't affect us? That's idiotic.

Well, I'm not sure what "anti-environmentalism" is, but my criticism with much of the "environmentalist/green" movement has nothing to do with thinking climate change is bogus, or simply not caring if we destroy the environment. I do care and I do think biodiversity should be protected, but I see no possibility of this happening under the present system. Those who own the means of production are, obviously, the chief contributors to environmental degradation. The idea that we can somehow get the capitalist class to shift their primary interest from generating profits to saving the planet is completely irrational. Whether or not climate change is, as you say, "an emergency" doesn't change this fact in any way. So for these reasons, 'environmentalism' just strikes me as completely unfeasible under capitalism and, thus, a waste of effort and a distraction from the underlying problem.
There are, however, always a small number of leftists who have the peculiar habit of seeing a liberal movement or cause and, in a mindless kneejerk effort to differentiate themselves from liberal thought, end up aligning themselves with bizarre right-wing positions. Several of the positions taken by the OP do indeed seem to me indicative of this inclination. Nonetheless, most criticisms of 'environmentalism' from the revolutionary left are not along these lines and are, indeed, legitimate.

[jake williams]

I think that if we don't destroy this civilization, there isn't going to be a lot left to save.
I mean human civilization pretty loosely. What I think is illogical really is the weird sort of circular contradiction of: civilization is bad because it is self-destructive; and so we should help it. Obviously the direction our civilization has gone is bad, but I don't think that's a problem inherent in things like language, art, technology, or wanting things materially. I think we should be changing the use and development of technology so we can keep technology.


Well, I'm not sure what "anti-environmentalism" is, but my criticism with much of the "environmentalist/green" movement has nothing to do with thinking climate change is bogus, or simply not caring if we destroy the environment. I do care and I do think biodiversity should be protected, but I see no possibility of this happening under the present system. Those who own the means of production are, obviously, the chief contributors to environmental degradation. The idea that we can somehow get the capitalist class to shift their primary interest from generating profits to saving the planet is completely irrational. Whether or not climate change is, as you say, "an emergency" doesn't change this fact in any way. So for these reasons, 'environmentalism' just strikes me as completely unfeasible under capitalism and, thus, a waste of effort and a distraction from the underlying problem.
There are, however, always a small number of leftists who have the peculiar habit of seeing a liberal movement or cause and, in a mindless kneejerk effort to differentiate themselves from liberal thought, end up aligning themselves with bizarre right-wing positions. Several of the positions taken by the OP do indeed seem to me indicative of this inclination. Nonetheless, most criticisms of 'environmentalism' from the revolutionary left are not along these lines and are, indeed, legitimate.
I'd like to respond more extensively but I don't have the time presently, I'm back home for the weekend and I've got a lot to do, family and friends to see etc. I will say that there's an interesting comment apropos from Chomsky that I think is at least worth considering for a bit. It's something to the effect of, capitalists see this as the world they own, and when their sort of "private property" is really threatened they do think seriously about doing something. He articulates it better than I do. I think the important thing is that capitalism isn't anti-rational or purposely destructive - it has a sort of internal rationality that needs some sort of an intact world in which to function.

[bcbm]

Obviously the direction our civilization has gone is bad, but I don't think that's a problem inherent in things like language, art, technology, or wanting things materially. I think we should be changing the use and development of technology so we can keep technology.

I don't think the problem is in any of those things either, but I do think many of the things that have marked our civilization up to this point will need to be rexamined and destroyed if we want to have any real hope of not self-destructing as a species. I think this inevitably leads to rexamining our relationships with other things as well, but not to completely destroy them.

[Orange Juche]

-Species are going to go extinct. I don't really give a fuck about the whales or the polar bears. Species have gone

All life on Earth aren't autonomous of each other. Species extinction can have drastic impacts on ecosystems, and often can end up having a negative effect on humans.

[Psy]

Well, that too. I suppose it depends what sort of urban areas we end up building.
Subways have already proved themselves as has trams/streetcars, that are currently not used more simply because of the cost of their infrastructure in a capitalist system, capitalists don't like requiring a army of track crews as they get paid much better then road crews due to railways tending to have relatively strong labor unions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Subways have already proved themselves as has trams/streetcars, that are currently not used more simply because of the cost of their infrastructure in a capitalist system, capitalists don't like requiring a army of track crews as they get paid much better then road crews due to railways tending to have relatively strong labor unions.

What about electric vehicles?

[Psy]

What about electric vehicles?
Subways are trams/streetcars tend to be electric and have the advantage of not having to carry their electric power supply with them (yet this also requires infrastructure that has to be maintained by unionized workers thus a problem under capitalism), even diesel electric trains are basically hybrids that generate the electricity they need through a diesel electric generator that is carried on the train.

Electric buses (trolley buses) do have the advantage in hilly terrain due the higher friction of tires, modern electric buses also have batteries so they can lower their poles and run off the grid.

As for electric cars there is a problem of density, in urbanized areas mass transit is more logical due to the number of people moving around in a concentrated area, in rural areas the distances become greater making battery vehicles less practical.

[Cobalt]

RE: Environmentalism as separate from class struggle.

I think it's interesting that so many people don't see how lopsided the effects of environmental degradation can be with regard to class. Wealthy capitalists are far less affected by mountaintop removal coal mining than the Appalachian people who no longer have clean water and get cancer as children thanks to toxic chemicals in their ground water. Tell them it's not a class issue, and come back when they're done beating you with a shoe.

[9]

RE: Environmentalism as separate from class struggle.

I think it's interesting that so many people don't see how lopsided the effects of environmental degradation can be with regard to class. Wealthy capitalists are far less affected by mountaintop removal coal mining than the Appalachian people who no longer have clean water and get cancer as children thanks to toxic chemicals in their ground water. Tell them it's not a class issue, and come back when they're done beating you with a shoe.

If this is in response to my comment, please go back and reread what I said. The liberal environmentalist movement is what I was speaking of, as I specified in my comment itself. Getting a mountain climber to scale Mount Rushmore to put a Green Peace poster on a president's face doesn't do much for West Virginians with black tap water.

[pastradamus]

Much of modern environmentalism is too far over the top for my liking. I am an advocate of saving endangered animals and saving ecosystems etc... but there is some bullcrap out there that is just followed without question and blindly so because it bears the "environmental" badge. One example being the Toyota prius with its bullshit hybrid engine - One gets better fuel economy from other cars of the same size that are non hybrid. Many times We find ourselves having to fork out extra cash to pay for something thats supposed to save the environment. This comes in the form of Capitalist products and taxes. This is why I hate the global warming salesmen.

[Abc]

Does it matter if several species become extinct? I'm actually curious to know if this will have any adverse effect on humans.

If it doesn't I don't see any reason to strive for "saving" species that are about to go extinct.
Because as several people posted above alot of animals could have benifits we dont know about right now, aswell as with things such as sharks extincion would cause a massive imbalance in the food chain

[Abc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_finning
As for species having benifits we dont know about thats pretty self explanatory

[9]

I mean human civilization pretty loosely. What I think is illogical really is the weird sort of circular contradiction of: civilization is bad because it is self-destructive; and so we should help it. Obviously the direction our civilization has gone is bad, but I don't think that's a problem inherent in things like language, art, technology, or wanting things materially. I think we should be changing the use and development of technology so we can keep technology.


I'd like to respond more extensively but I don't have the time presently, I'm back home for the weekend and I've got a lot to do, family and friends to see etc. I will say that there's an interesting comment apropos from Chomsky that I think is at least worth considering for a bit. It's something to the effect of, capitalists see this as the world they own, and when their sort of "private property" is really threatened they do think seriously about doing something. He articulates it better than I do. I think the important thing is that capitalism isn't anti-rational or purposely destructive - it has a sort of internal rationality that needs some sort of an intact world in which to function.

I'm not sure I fully understand how the analogy that you've provided works on a global scale - it strikes me as a bit of a contradiction. The implication of your previous post seemed to be that climate change is an emergency which has not been adequately addressed and is threatening the very existence of the planet. Conversely, the implication of the analogy in your new post seems to be that the capitalist class is rational, and therefore would not allow anything to threaten their "private property" (by which you/Chomsky mean "the planet"). So in short, it seems you've said that there is an out-and-out emergency threatening the existence of the planet, but then you've said that the capitalist class knows better than to do/allow something to threaten the planet. Granted, I realize you said you were in a hurry, so perhaps time did not permit you to adequately explain you're/Chomsky's analogy, so I will not dissect that part of it any further without allowing a chance for you to elaborate.

With regard to the last part of your comment, I agree in theory that the capitalist class is not "anti-rational" per se or "purposefully destructive" (assuming you mean "not destructive purely for the sake of destruction"). Though I think they are not "anti-rational" only with regard to their own immediate interests, the foremost of which is maximizing profit. So, yes, they are very rational insofar as the immediate maximization/generation of capital is concerned. However, when it comes to matters of foresight, their "rationality" is far more suspect, if existent at all. The immediate maximization of profit generally precludes any serious consideration of matters (insofar as the allocation of capital is concerned) which are potentially generations away from really affecting the capitalist class. Particularly with regard to instances which would require capitalists to make immediate and substantial economic sacrifices for the sake of something that only relates to profit in an extremely distant, far-removed, abstract way. When the driving force is the maximization of profit, an investment which promises returns consisting of “protecting biodiversity” and “preventing the poor and working people from facing a catastrophe a generation or less from now” is not an investment that most, if any, capitalists will make. At least not in any monetary sum large enough to exceed mere symbolism. And it is not really sufficient to try to refute this with a claim along the lines of "well, there isn't going to be much profit-making if there isn't a planet" because it is not as though: climate change + one lifetime = world blows up. It’s far more abstract than this. The capitalist class, by virtue of wealth, will be the last people to find their lives threatened by environmental catastrophe. So ultimately, what it comes down to is the fact that if climate change is not negatively effecting the influx of revenue, capitalists aren't going to make any financial sacrifices to prevent it. And the consistent stance of the capitalist class on the matter of climate change is demonstrative of this. In matters of short-term profit versus long-term sustainability, the capitalist opts for short-term profit.

[thethinkingchimp]

Well, apparently France is more enviormentally friendly now:rolleyes:: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8248392.stm I hope the states don't get any ideas from this ridiculous strategy. This is called treating the symptoms, not the disease:glare:.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm not an environmentalist. This is not because i don't believe that environmental problems need to be solved -- i very much do think that they need to be.

I'm not an environmentalist because i believe that the dominant environmentalist notion that the way to solve environmental problems is by making people consume less, travel less, and generally lower their ambitions and expectations is nothing but utterly backward and reactionary.

[GPDP]

I'm not an environmentalist. This is not because i don't believe that environmental problems need to be solved -- i very much do think that they need to be.

I'm not an environmentalist because i believe that the dominant environmentalist notion that the way to solve environmental problems is by making people consume less, travel less, and generally lower their ambitions and expectations is nothing but utterly backward and reactionary.

Right, and I believe most of us agree on this point. Which is why I believe we need to push forth our own discourse on issues of the environment, against that of the mainstream liberal green movement which advocates those measures.

I have pointed to John Bellamy Foster's writings on the environment as an example of how to do just that.

[Vanguard1917]

Unfortunately, 'radical' environmentalists like Foster share some of the key backward ideas of environmentalism. In case you're interested, i discussed Foster's severe distortion of Marxism here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1298799&postcount=12

[mikelepore]

I'm not worried about climate change. Climate change has also happened before, and florida is a shitty state anyways.

When rising sea level puts Florida underwater, the following places that have the same elevation as Florida will also be underwater: Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, ......

[Pavlov's House Party]

I'm not an environmentalist. This is not because i don't believe that environmental problems need to be solved -- i very much do think that they need to be.

I'm not an environmentalist because i believe that the dominant environmentalist notion that the way to solve environmental problems is by making people consume less, travel less, and generally lower their ambitions and expectations is nothing but utterly backward and reactionary.

I agree 100%. Controlling emissions, pollution, overfishing etc. can only be accomplished in a socialist planned economy, which is overlooked by most environmentalists. Human suffering must be erradicated in even the most underdevelopped countries before we can even think about reducing consumption and production.

[Tzadikim]

I am an environmentalist because I am a socialist. Socialism will inevitably fulfill the concerns of the environmentalist because, by ending the exploitation of man by man, it will likewise end the exploitation of nature by man. One cannot, in fact, be a capitalist and an environmentalist, regardless of how 'liberal' one is.

[Eat the Rich]

Human suffering must be erradicated in even the most underdevelopped countries before we can even think about reducing consumption and production.


Why should we reduce consumption and production in a socialist planned economy? I think we can still keep producing in the same rates and ever more, provided that we don't do it in the wasteful anarchic manner of capitalist production.

Anyways, I still think that demands such as free and quality public transportation should be put forward as "environmentalist" transitional demands, as they attack the very foundations of capitalism and expose the inability of the market to make a rational plan for the protection of the environment.

[Ovi]

I'm in disagreement with the whole environmentalist movement, I think class struggle and union action are far more important than saving the whales or whatever. Here's what I think when it comes to the environment:
-Pollution is going to happen. We shouldn't get to the point where you have to wear masks like in China, but I don't think we should cut it down to the point where we are making huge sacrifices in our daily lives
-Species are going to go extinct. I don't really give a fuck about the whales or the polar bears. Species have gone extinct before humans were around and will continue to go extinct
-I'm not worried about climate change. Climate change has also happened before, and florida is a shitty state anyways.
-I don't think cars with low gas mileage are evil. Sure, Hummers are ugly as fuck, but you won't catch me drivin no prius.
-I agree with environmentalism that benefits humans, but environmentalism just for the sake of environmentalism I disagree with
Thats all I can think of right now, is anyone here in agreement with me or am I the only non environmentalist?
Environmentalism first means protecting your health so there is enough room for selfish people too. Minning with cyanide is bound to poison many people in the area, pesticides used in agriculture will end up in our food, cutting the forrests will erode the soil and limit our possibility for new agricultural land, replacing internal combustion cars with electric ones will prevent thousands of people from developing asthma and other diseases, intensive agriculture leaches nutrients in rivers that in the end kill fish and thus destroy the fishing industry (it happened on a massive scale in the Black Sea a few years ago), acid rain destroys crops and damages the soil...

You don't have to be generous to care about the environment, you only have to give a shit about your health.

[Vanguard1917]

I agree 100%. Controlling emissions, pollution, overfishing etc. can only be accomplished in a socialist planned economy, which is overlooked by most environmentalists. Human suffering must be erradicated in even the most underdevelopped countries before we can even think about reducing consumption and production.

Good post. But, like EtR, i have to ask why reducing consumption and production should even be a goal. Surely socialism will see production and consumption levels radically increase, as the capitalist barriers to economic dynamism are destroyed and billions are lifted out of poverty?

[Pavlov's House Party]

Good post. But, like EtR, i have to ask why reducing consumption and production should even be a goal. Surely socialism will see production and consumption levels radically increase, as the capitalist barriers to economic dynamism are destroyed and billions are lifted out of poverty?

That's very true. I meant that we should only consider modifying our production methods to more environmentally friendly ones when poverty and such has been erradicated, but I worded it poorly.

[bcbm]

I meant that we should only consider modifying our production methods to more environmentally friendly ones when poverty and such has been erradicated

Why can't we bring people out of poverty with more environmentally friendly production?

[Coggeh]

Why can't we bring people out of poverty with more environmentally friendly production?
No reason , in the long term that is . But what we can't do is suscribe to the idea that nations must be environmentally friendly or carbon neutral or w/e before they up production . We can't wait for the global warming to be solved(if at all possible) before we start combating poverty by increasing production etc.

[Revy]

There's way too much hate against environmentalism here. Insults like "liberal" or "primitivist" being thrown around without regard to their original meaning.

Climate change is a crisis. Most denial about climate change revolves around selective examination of events..."oh, hurricanes in the Atlantic aren't that bad anymore? so climate change must be a lie!" Never mind that the flooding of Tuvalu by rising tides continues, the desertification of land worldwide, etc.

[bcbm]

No reason , in the long term that is . But what we can't do is suscribe to the idea that nations must be environmentally friendly or carbon neutral or w/e before they up production . We can't wait for the global warming to be solved(if at all possible) before we start combating poverty by increasing production etc.

And, again, I don't see how, or at least why, these are being presented as seperate issues? Poverty isn't an issue if your city is now underwater because of global warming. And even outside of extreme possiblities like that, look at somewhere like China. It seems fairly often there are massive riots over environmental issues; they are a major concern. I think creating a livable world is a fundamental part of eliminating poverty.

[Vanguard1917]

Poverty isn't an issue if your city is now underwater because of global warming.

And the poorer your city, then, all things being equal, the more susceptible it is likely to be to destructive flooding. The more prosperous and economically developed your city, the more resources it will have to defend itself against such natural threats.

Poverty is very much the issue. Ending poverty through mass economic development is the only way that human beings can begin to control nature and lower their level of vulnerability to its caprice.

[bcbm]

And the poorer your city, then, all things being equal, the more susceptible it is likely to be to destructive flooding. The more prosperous and economically developed your city, the more resources it will have to defend itself against such natural threats.

Poverty is very much the issue. Ending poverty through mass economic development is the only way that human beings can begin to control nature and lower their level of vulnerability to its caprice.

Did you even read what I wrote? Because you aren't addressing anything I actually said.

[Oneironaut]

And the poorer your city, then, all things being equal, the more susceptible it is likely to be to destructive flooding. The more prosperous and economically developed your city, the more resources it will have to defend itself against such natural threats.

Poverty is very much the issue. Ending poverty through mass economic development is the only way that human beings can begin to control nature and lower their level of vulnerability to its caprice.

Regardless of poverty, environment still needs to be an agent in the equation. Environmental factors play a huge role on how productive you can potentially be. Going hell bent on producing as much as possible, without taking into consideration the sustainability aspect of a particular environment, we are setting ourselves up for a very dangerous situation. There are very important environmental factors that we need to include alongside production requirements that can potentially vary even within one region.

It is silly to think that poverty is the only issue that we have on our plates and that its eradication will be the 'cure all' to environmental issues. You seem to have a rather archaic conception of what nature/environment really is (it is not simply a tool for man's use but rather a complex interaction of relationships).

[Vanguard1917]

Regardless of poverty, environment still needs to be an agent in the equation. Environmental factors play a huge role on how productive you can potentially be. Going hell bent on producing as much as possible, without taking into consideration the sustainability aspect of a particular environment, we are setting ourselves up for a very dangerous situation.


Obviously, I agree with that.

[Oneironaut]

Oh woops! Sorry, I must have misunderstood. But do you think that poverty is the only issue we face and eradicating poverty will be the 'cure all' to environmental issues?

[bcbm]

Obviously, I agree with that.

Then what were you trying to argue with me about? That's all I've been saying...

[black magick hustla]

even, from a "physicist viewpoint", it kindof theoretically already argues about "unsustainability" through thermodynamics. Basically, thermodynamical systems, like engines, raise the entropy in the enviroment, entropy being the lack of information, or in more crass terms "chaos". If we lack information about the system, we cannot really "control" it because we have no information about it.