Is environmentalism reactionary?

[Vanguard1917]

The core assumption of environmentalism seems to be that human beings have an obligation to preserve the environment for its own sake. This seems like a very anti-humanist approach. The truth is that human progress has always come from human beings intervening in the natural state of the environment - from violating the environment in the interests of humanity. For example, in the 'developing' world, the welfare of the people depends on a massive increase in productivity. If this productivity is not in the 'interests' of the environment, shall we reject it? Is this not reactionary? Is this not counter-productive? Most importantly, does this not degrade the human beings that live there?

[KC]

The environment should be the most important. After that human society can come. Sounds like pussy logic, but still, if we destroyed it in the name of humanity then there would be no humanity. I'm not too crazy about saving the trees and all that shit, but there definitely does need to be balance.

[Matthew The Great]

The environment will (unfortunatly) always be a backburner political issue when religious zealots like Bush are in office. They take the attitude of "Our environment doesn't matter. Jesus will come soon and make everything better and we will live in eternal paradise". Their temporary planet matters not to them.

I know this attitude goes back at least to the Reagan administration. It may go even further back.

[LSD]

The environment matters, but people matter more.

Current environmental policy is abysmal, but that's mostly due to capitalism. Capitalism artificially overstimulates demand and unnescessarily pushes production to increase "profits". But any economic system has to account for the fact that 6 billion people aren't going to feed themselves. Too much of the environmental movement is made up of rich white Euro-Americans who have no idea what real starvation is like. Sure, we all like trees and cude fuzzy animals, but the third wold isn't going to feed itself with soy.

If it's a choice between saving the rain forrest and ending world hunger, I know where my vote is.

Timbbbbbbberrrrrrr!

[KC]

That's foolish to say. World hunger will always be a problem in a capitalist society.

People starve. To compensate we produce more food. This sounds like a good idea. However, because of this increase in food supply the population increases. Since there isn't enough food to feed them, the cycle starts all over again. World hunger in this cycle will never be over, seeing as how we don't have infinite resources. Population control is one of the best responses. Read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. I know I've said that before, but it's a DAMN good book.

I don't know how essential the rainforest is. But I'd rather have a rainforest than another big city in its place.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't know how essential the rainforest is. But I'd rather have a rainforest than another big city in its place.

Why? Big cities are a great thing. But of course they can be much greater. People in big cities have access to the highest living standards that this capitalist system has to offer: in health care, housing, education, work opportunities, leisure, culture, nutrition, transport, etc. - the list goes on and on. Why shouldn't people in the underdeveloped world have access to such things? What gives middle-class Westerners the right to object to development in the underdeveloped world? I oppose spontaneous and irrational capitalist "development" in the underdeveloped world. But i also strongly oppose irrational nature-worshipping, petit-bourgeois environmentalist concerns. The underdeveloped world needs development - NOT "sustainable development", but RAPID, MASS development - for the sake of the people there.


Sure, we all like trees and cude fuzzy animals, but the third wold isn't going to feed itself with soy.

Precisely. It's a very sad day when the "interests" of trees and animals are put on par with human lives. But it's even sadder that the left allowed itself to be associated (if not almost dominated) with these kind of ideas.

[Vanguard1917]

Population control is one of the best responses. Read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. I know I've said that before, but it's a DAMN good book.

What nonsense. I suggest you start by reading Marx's critique of Thomas Malthus - a bourgeois thinker who in the 19th century already advocated "population control" to solve societies problems.

*edit*


Population control is one of the best responses.

This, by the way, is characteristic of environmentalism. Human being are only seen to be the source of the world's problems, rather than the solution to the world's problems. They want a limited human presence on earth because this is the answer to their disgustingly anti-humanist environmentalist dreams. If mankind is seen as the problem, we might as well give up.

[Redmau5]

The population is expected to rise to 10-12 billion and then level out. Now that's way too many people.

And if you fuck with rainforests, or forests in general, you can fuck up peoples living standards. You just have look at the likes of Haiti and Bangladesh and see what happened when they cut down all their forests. There was serious flooding because there was hardly any trees to soak up excess rain water.

There needs to be a balance. Why don't we just continue to fuck up our environment? Then we'll see how long mankind lasts.

[Vanguard1917]

The population is expected to rise to 10-12 billion and then level out. Now that's way too many people.

It isn't too many people at all. The world is full of unoccupied space - space that would be fit for human beings if only development and productive technology was stepped-up. I say, the more the merrier. To reiterate, humanity is the solution, not the problem.

[LSD]

People starve. To compensate we produce more food. This sounds like a good idea. However, because of this increase in food supply the population increases. Since there isn't enough food to feed them, the cycle starts all over again. World hunger in this cycle will never be over, seeing as how we don't have infinite resources. Population control is one of the best responses.

If by population control you mean that information regarding contraceptives, birth control, and abortion should be widely and easily available than I support you one hundred percent. But if you are, as you did in another thread, suggesting that we refrain from curing diseases so that the population goes down ...well, then your just a genocidal fuck.


I don't know how essential the rainforest is. But I'd rather have a rainforest than another big city in its place.

You see, that is reflexive environmentalism. You have no idea if the rain forest is needed but its green so let's put a fence around it. Yes, there are good reasons to keep the rainforest but you don't know what they are!! :lol: You just think that somehoe protecting the rainforest makes up for the "sins" of makind in "destroying" the environment.

It's just salvation theology repackaged as "science". It's fucking religion and get over it.


And if you fuck with rainforests, or forests in general, you can fuck up peoples living standards. You just have look at the likes of Haiti and Bangladesh and see what happened when they cut down all their forests. There was serious flooding because there was hardly any trees to soak up excess rain water.

I'm not suggesting that the environment should be destroyed ...just environmentalists.

Of course, we can't cut down every tree, but that's in no danger of happening. The amount of trees in North America is exactly the same as it was 150 years ago! The reason that we're loosing trees in the third world is hungry starving people who need room to grow food and build houses, you know, do they don't die.

Personally, I put the lives of actuall people before a fucking forrest, no matter how "old growth" it is.

[ComradeChris]

Places like the rainforest provide medicine. Of cuorse, the counter-argument to that would be they could be grown in artificial environments. But how do you plan on producing oxygen when all the trees are gone? I still don't see why we should put humanity first. I mean why not put them equally? We're the ones who enslave ourselves, enslave animals, and destroy the environment. Honestly the humans seem to be the problem.

[KC]

I'd rather have a forest than a city because cities produce pollution and encourage increasing population, not to mention the fact that forests are essential to the current state of society.

I wasn't defending population control at all. In fact I think the idea's completely foolish. I was presenting the idea of population control to prove the fact that chances are world hunger will never be nonexistent.

10-12 billion people IS too many. Yes the world is full of unoccupied space, but not all of it is habitable. And there also needs to be resources for all those people. There also does need to be wildlife space. It's required. I never suggested the fact that people are less than the environment, but there NEEDS to be a balance.

Read the book. It's good.

[Redmau5]

Exactly, humans create most of the problems on this planet.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And humans are the only species capable of solving environmental problems.


Places like the rainforest provide medicine. Of cuorse, the counter-argument to that would be they could be grown in artificial environments. But how do you plan on producing oxygen when all the trees are gone? I still don't see why we should put humanity first. I mean why not put them equally? We're the ones who enslave ourselves, enslave animals, and destroy the environment. Honestly the humans seem to be the problem.

Trees don't 'produce' oxygen - They merely turn CO2 into O2 during the day and O2 into CO2 during the night; their net effect on the O2/CO2 balance is ZERO. Read any biology/botany book. The reason CO2 is increasing is because we are releasing CO2 formerly held in mineral deposits, not because we are chopping down rainforests.
Yes, it is true that most mineral deposits that contain CO2 are coal, oil and gas, but that's because when plants and animals die and become fossilised in this manner, they 'lock up' CO2. then we come along and release that CO2 by burninating it. The earth used to have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than it does today - which is why we once had carboniferous jungles in antarctica - the source of our coal.
Ironically, the best way to balance out O2 and CO2 is to turn the rainforests into books; because paper absorbs CO2 over time. As does tarmac, so once we've done levelling the rainforest we can build roads and carparks where they once stood.
Medicines? we can produce them artificially. 'Natural' remedies have great variance in their potencies, rendering them more dangerous than 'artificial' medicines, whose most common additives are sugar and the calcium-based powder used to make them into pills. Nature is ineffecient.

Ensuring that land effeciency is optimal, this planet could easily support hundreds of billions. While I'd prefer us settling on other planets, Earth could easily be modified in the future to be more spacious - Living on/under the oceans, making Earth a Shellworld, etc.

You eco-wackies think too small. Maybe it's the soya. :P

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The irony of reactionary pseudo-Marxist anti-environmentalism is how hillariously counter-materialist it is. We do not exist in a vaccum, and natural/unnatural dichotomies that spring from dominant ideology (and in particular the judeo-christian myth framework that Marxists are supposed to have escaped) is just a phantom - we, human beings, are part of the goddamn environment.
While certainly, many environmentalists have it wrong (and liberal tree-huggers in particular), a knee-jerk opposition to environmentalism because some environmentalists are bougie-liberals is idiotic.

[KC]

And humans are the only species capable of solving environmental problems.


1. The only problems with the environment were created by humans.
2. The fact that we're capable of solving them doesn't mean anything. We haven't, and chances are that we won't. The situation will just get worse.

[Vallegrande]

"A man is rich in proportion to that which he can let alone." -Henry D. Thoreau

[LSD]

I'd rather have a forest than a city because cities produce pollution and encourage increasing population, not to mention the fact that forests are essential to the current state of society.

Perhaps, but what's more essential to the "current state of society" is people and cities dramtically increase living conditions and standards. Personally, I would rather help a million people than a hundred plants.


Exactly, humans create most of the problems on this planet.

...and are the only ones to ever solve them

Nice symetry that.


We do not exist in a vaccum, and natural/unnatural dichotomies that spring from dominant ideology (and in particular the judeo-christian myth framework that Marxists are supposed to have escaped) is just a phantom - we, human beings, are part of the goddamn environment.

Absolutely!

The environment is important, largely because we're in it! :lol:

There are genuine environmental problems in the world today, but there are more pressing problems in other areas; like hunger, thirst, misery, and death. I entirely agree that once we've solved that later, we can worry about the former. But not before, at least certainly not in any way that will hinder any progress on the later. That is, if we can come up with a simple easy solution to current environmental issues that doesn't hurt the third world (or any marginalized group), than I'm all for it. But too much of the environmental movement is willing to sacrifice for the sake of environmental "principles". The irrational reaction to GMO foods is a particularly telling example.

Whille I'm the first to critisize projects such as the "terminator" gene and other profit-moving genetic alterations, the fact is that genetically modified foods are nescessary to deal with the fact that nearly a full third of humanity is not getting enough to eat. Maybe what the environmental movement needs to realize is that when someone is staving and watching their family and friends starve around them, they really don't give a fuck about the plight of some plants, nor should they.

Let's prioritize:

A) Help people.
B) Help animals
C) Help plants.

How about we don't focus on c until we've made some headway with a....


[b]"A man is rich in proportion to that which he can let alone." -Henry D. Thoreau

"Moose, Indian."

[Vanguard1917]

we, human beings, are part of the goddamn environment.

We are not only part of the environment, we are the sovereigns of the environment. The key anti-environmentalist argument here is that the environment has no value in itself. The environment is a resourse for human progress, and it should be resourcefully maintained - NOT preserved as some sort of moral obligation to trees and goats. As human beings progress in a truly consciously planned society, the environment too will progress - not in the 'interests' of plants and animals, but in the interests of people.

Every period of progress of human beings has gone hand in hand with (among other things) more advanced forms of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Hunting and gathering is a form of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Farming and cultivating the land are forms of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Breeding and domesticating animals as livestock is a form of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Cutting down trees for fuel, extracting coal from the ground, building a factory, etc. are all forms of manipulating and violating the natural environment. In short, man cannot increase productivity without discovering more advanced forms of manipulation and violation of his natural surroundings.

But, of course, i'm pressuposing that we, as leftists, have not lost faith in the project of massively increasing productivity so that all humanity can enjoy all things in abundance...

[KC]

...and are the only ones to ever solve them

did you read my earlier post?


1. The only problems with the environment were created by humans.
2. The fact that we're capable of solving them doesn't mean anything. We haven't, and chances are that we won't. The situation will just get worse.


There are genuine environmental problems in the world today, but there are more pressing problems in other areas; like hunger, thirst, misery, and death.
Ending world hunger and thirst will never happen. It's impossible. Especially in this society. Someone will always be starving, there's no way around it. Misery? That has nothing to do with the environment. Death? You're going to end death? Wow good luck with THAT one.

THE WORLD HUNGER PROBLEM:
People are starving. To compensate we produce more food. The effect of producing more food is a POPULATION INCREASE; NOT A SOLUTION. When the population goes up, people will starve because there's not enough food for them. And the cycle continues. This has been going on since the beginning of this society and has accomplished nothing. Therefore, the only way for this problem to be solved is through a societal change. Which has nothing to do with environmentalism and doesn't belong in this topic.

THE WORLD THIRST PROBLEM:
Very similar to the hunger problem, but easier to solve. Yet it still hasn't been solved. To solve this problem there has to be water treatment plants and running water throughout the entire world. Countries can't afford this because of the fact that the rich countries prey on the poor. Again, a societal problem. Doesn't belong in this topic.

THE MISERY PROBLEM:
There will always be misery. There's no way around it. There always has been and always will be. The good balance the evil.

THE DEATH PROBLEM:
People die!

Let's prioritize:
A)Help people, animals, AND plants at the same time.
This is perfectly possible. To say that people can't be environmentally conscious and have the same living standards is foolish.


Maybe what the environmental movement needs to realize is that when someone is staving and watching their family and friends starve around them, they really don't give a fuck about the plight of some plants, nor should they.
See hunger problem.


Perhaps, but what's more essential to the "current state of society" is people and cities dramtically increase living conditions and standards. Personally, I would rather help a million people than a hundred plants.
We've already helped "millions of people" and it has gotten us nowhere. Again, see the hunger problem. Population increases destroy your logic completely.

[Vanguard1917]

Let's prioritize:
A)Help people, animals, AND plants at the same time.

YOU can prioritise such things for YOURSELF. WE have 6 billion (minus one) people to think about.


To say that people can't be environmentally conscious and have the same living standards is foolish.

"Environmentally conscious". One of those new catchwords that mean nothing. As i said in my last post...

Every period of progress of human beings has gone hand in hand with (among other things) more advanced forms of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Hunting and gathering is a form of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Farming and cultivating the land are forms of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Breeding and domesticating animals as livestock is a form of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Cutting down trees for fuel, extracting coal from the ground, building a factory, etc. are all forms of manipulating and violating the natural environment. In short, man cannot increase productivity without discovering more advanced forms of manipulation and violation of his natural surroundings.

[LSD]

People are starving. To compensate we produce more food. The effect of producing more food is a POPULATION INCREASE; NOT A SOLUTION. When the population goes up, people will starve because there's not enough food for them. And the cycle continues. This has been going on since the beginning of this society and has accomplished nothing. Therefore, the only way for this problem to be solved is through a societal change. Which has nothing to do with environmentalism and doesn't belong in this topic.

:lol:!

You're on a website called "Revolutionary Left". This forum is all about social change and it has everything to do with this topic. Until there is that desperately needed social change, you're right, starvation, thirst, and misery will continue. So let's work for that change!

Let's build a better and free society so that hunger and thirst and misery are eliminated and then and only then concentrate on plants.


This is perfectly possible. To say that people can't be environmentally conscious and have the same living standards is foolish.

I don't know what "environmentally conscious" means, but at the present it would be impossible to feed the world and abide by the ludicrous demands of the "environmental movement". These demands would if enacted, quite simply, murder millions of people. And for what? Trees? Plants?!?!

Even a more tempered "environmental" proposal would still result, in the very least, to a perpetuation of the socio-economic status quo which is not an option! :angry:


Ending world hunger and thirst will never happen. It's impossible.

It's to doing exactly this that this forum is dedicated.

Or hadn't you noticed?

[KC]

I definitely typed some of that without thinking :lol:

"Environmentally conscious" should've been environmentalism.


Every period of progress of human beings has gone hand in hand with (among other things) more advanced forms of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Hunting and gathering is a form of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Farming and cultivating the land are forms of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Breeding and domesticating animals as livestock is a form of manipulating and violating the natural environment. Cutting down trees for fuel, extracting coal from the ground, building a factory, etc. are all forms of manipulating and violating the natural environment. In short, man cannot increase productivity without discovering more advanced forms of manipulation and violation of his natural surroundings.


This is untrue. Humans had a natural way of living before this society came to be. They used to fit in the balance of things. Before farming was conceived, in primitive indian tribes, this balance existed. Of course, that was before this society. Increasing populations and the problem of increasing productivity only started when this society was born; when farming was first implemented.



You're on a website called "Revolutionary Left". This forum is all about social change and it has everything to do with this topic. Until there is that desperately needed social change, you're right, starvation, thirst, and misery will continue. So let's work for that change!
I'm in COMPLETE agreement with this!


Let's build a better and free society so that hunger and thirst and misery are eliminated and then and only then concentrate on plants.

I don't agree with this. You can focus on more than one problem at once.


I don't know what "environmentally conscious" means, but at the present it would be impossible to feed the world and abide by the ludicrous demands of the "environmental movement". These demands would if enacted, quite simply, murder millions of people. And for what? Trees? Plants?!?!
Environmental movement? If there is such a thing and what your views on it are correct then I would never be part of it. It sounds like you're talking about people such as PETA members. PETA members are nuts. That kind of thinking is completely illogical and I would never believe such a thing.




It's to doing exactly this that this forum is dedicated.

I noticed. I just misworded that. My fault. What I meant was Ending world hunger and thirst will never happen in this society. It's impossible.

[LSD]

Environmental movement? If there is such a thing and what your views on it are correct then I would never be part of it. It sounds like you're talking about people such as PETA members. PETA members are nuts. That kind of thinking is completely illogical and I would never believe such a thing.

I'm talking about organizations like PETA and the ALF, but also like GreenPeace and the Rainforest Action Coalition. They're all advocating actions that would lead to human misery and suffering for the sake of "nature".


I don't agree with this. You can focus on more than one problem at once.

Not if the only available solution to one of those problems worsens the other one, as is the case here.


I noticed. I just misworded that. My fault. What I meant was Ending world hunger and thirst will never happen in this society.

So let's make a new one!

[Vanguard1917]

This is untrue. Humans had a natural way of living before this society came to be. They used to fit in the balance of things. Before farming was conceived, in primitive indian tribes, this balance existed. Of course, that was before this society. Increasing populations and the problem of increasing productivity only started when this society was born; when farming was first implemented.

Do you dream of going back to the days of primitivism, when human prensence on this earth was limited and destructive natural forces were totally out of human control? You obviously hold the human race in very low regard. I think that is the key problem here.

[KC]

Do you dream of going back to the days of primitivism, when human prensence on this earth was limited and destructive natural forces were totally out of human control? You obviously hold the human race in very low regard. I think that is the key problem here.


I definitely don't mean that. I believe that humans need to learn to live in accordance with the laws of nature or be subject to extinction. Ishmael. Read it. It's not that long, it's an easy read, and it's eye opening. And it's not about environmentalism, it's about the major flaws of this society.

[Vanguard1917]

Ishmael. Read it. It's not that long, it's an easy read, and it's eye opening. And it's not about environmentalism, it's about the major flaws of this society.


Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Quinn ( Dreamer ) won the Turner Tomorrow Award's half-million-dollar first prize for this fascinating and odd book--not a novel by any conventional definition--which was written 13 years ago but could not find a publisher. The unnamed narrator is a disillusioned modern writer who answers a personal ad ("Teacher seeks pupil. . . . Apply in person.") and thereby meets a wise, learned gorilla named Ishmael that can communicate telepathically. The bulk of the book consists entirely of philosophical dialogues between gorilla and man, on the model of Plato's Republic. Through Ishmael, Quinn offers a wide-ranging if highly general examination of the history of our civilization, illuminating the assumptions and philosophies at the heart of many global problems. Despite some gross oversimplifications, Quinn's ideas are fairly convincing; it's hard not to agree that unrestrained population growth and an obsession with conquest and control of the environment are among the key issues of our times. Quinn also traces these problems back to the agricultural revolution and offers a provocative rereading of the biblical stories of Genesis. Though hardly any plot to speak of lies behind this long dialogue, Quinn's smooth style and his intriguing proposals should hold the attention of readers interested in the daunting dilemmas that beset our planet. 50,000 first printing; major ad/promo.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Library Journal
Winner of the Turner Tomorrow Fellowship, a literary competition intended to foster works of fiction that present positive solutions to global problems, this book offers proof that good ideas do not necessarily equal good literature. Ishmael, a gorilla rescued from a traveling show who has learned to reason and communicate, uses these skills to educate himself in human history and culture. Through a series of philosophical conversations with the unnamed narrator, a disillusioned Sixties idealist, Ishmael lays out a theory of what has gone wrong with human civilization and how to correct it, a theory based on the tenet that humanity belongs to the planet rather than vice versa. While the message is an important one, Quinn rarely goes beyond a didactic exposition of his argument, never quite succeeding in transforming idea into art. Despite this, heavy publicity should create demand. Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 10/15/91.
- Lawrence Rungren, Bedford Free P.L., Mass.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.


Sorry, but this just doesn't "grab" me.

[KC]

That's your opinion. But everyone that I know of has said that before they read it and I haven't met anyone that didnt like it.

[rice349]

the earth has survived for billions of years; nature is more powerful than man, that is a given. The arrogance in assuming that it is up to us to preserve nature is unbelievable in many on the left. The belief that a mere species will take it upon itself to "save the planet" is beyond laughable--it's foolish. Nature will deal with us its own way when it wants--regardless of how the population flows. We are only going to be here temporarily before the fine evolutionary processes deem us no longer desirable. While i'm not saying we should just dump everything into the water system, the earth will be able to take care of itself.

[KC]

Of course, life on this planet will go on. But we have to keep our interests in mind. "Saving the world" is hardly what I'm talking about. It isn't up to us to preserve nature, it is up to us to keep this world habitable for humankind.

[rice349]

Of course, life on this planet will go on. But we have to keep our interests in mind. "Saving the world" is hardly what I'm talking about. It isn't up to us to preserve nature, it is up to us to keep this world habitable for humankind.

While I wasn't personally targeting you either, i'm glad you understand that we will have to inherently use natural resources and "damage" the earth in order for the maintaining of human sustainability.

[KC]

There are ways to live that are much better for the environment AND for us. We just have to discover them. Such as the non-renewable resource problem; easily solved, it's just a matter of doing it.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

What's funny is that many "environmentalists" are so much opposed to nuclear power, and yet it is perhaps the most environment friendly power source currently available. Renewable energy production such as wind, solar and water power takes a lot of space and alters the environments. Obviously nuclear power is potentially very dangerous, however, and until we have fusion power, if ever, the best course of action in my opinion is to minimise energy usage as much as is possible without going all primitive through technologies that require less energy and so on, and use nuclear power for much of the rest, giving up heavily polluting energy sources.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

See my thread on nuclear power Here! (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=30508)

Also see My replies in this thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34100)

[coda]

WORLD SCIENTISTS' WARNING TO HUMANITY

Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

THE ENVIRONMENT IS SUFFERING CRITICAL STRESS

The Atmosphere

Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultra-violet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests and crops.

Water Resources

Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40% of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans

Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste?some of it toxic

Soil

Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread byproduct of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11% of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded?an area larger than India and China combined?and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.

Forests

Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.

Living Species

The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself.

Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain?with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe?but the potential risks are very great.

Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life?coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change?could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.

Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threat.

POPULATION

The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

WARNING

We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

WHAT WE MUST DO

Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.

We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to third world needs?small scale and relatively easy to implement.

We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.

2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.

We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.

3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.

Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.

Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war?amounting to over $1 trillion annually?will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.

A new ethic is required?a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convince reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.

The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere.

We need the help of many.

We require the help of the world community of scientists?natural, social, economic, political;

We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders;

We require the help of the worlds religious leaders; and

We require the help of the world's peoples.

We call on all to join us in this task.

PROMINENT INDIVIDUALS
AMONG MORE THAN 1,500 SIGNATORIES

_Anatole Abragam, Physicist; Fmr. Member, Pontifical Academy of Sciences; France
_Carlos Aguirre President, Academy of Sciences, Bolivia
_Walter Alvarez Geologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Viqar Uddin Ammad, Chemist, Pakistani & Third World Academies, Pakistan
_Claude Allegre, Geophysicist, Crafoord Prize, France
_Michael Alpers Epidemiologist, Inst. of Med. Research, Papua New Guinea
_Anne Anastasi, Psychologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Philip Anderson, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Christian Anfinsen, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
_How Ghee Ang, Chemist, Third World Academy, Singapore
_Werner Arber, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Switzerland
_Mary Ellen Avery, Pediatrician, National Medal of Science, USA
_Julius Axelrod, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Michael Atiyah, Mathematician; President, Royal Society; Great Britain
_Howard Bachrach, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_John Backus, Computer Scientist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Achmad Baiquni, Physicist, Indonesian & Third World Academies, Indonesia
_David Baltimore, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_H. A. Barker, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Francisco J. Barrantes, Biophysicist, Third World Academy, Argentina
_David Bates, Physicist, Royal Irish Academy, Ireland
_Alan Battersby, Chemist, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, Great Britain
_Baruj Benacerraf, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Georg Bednorz, Nobel laureate, Physics; Switzerland
_Germot Bergold, Inst. Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas, Venezuela
_Sune Bergstrom, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Sweden
_Daniel Bes, Physicist, Argentinean & Third World Academies, Argentina
_Hans Bethe, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Arthur Birch Chemist, Australian Academy of Science, Australia
_Michael Bishop, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Konrad Bloch, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Nicholaas Bloembergen, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_David Mervyn Blow, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, Great Britain
_Baruch Blumberg, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Bert Bolin, Meteorologist, Tyler Prize, Sweden
_Norman Borlaug, Agricultural Scientist, Nobel laureate, Peace; USA & Mexico
_Frederick Bormann, Forest Ecologist; Past President, Ecological Soc. of Amer.; USA
_Raoul Bott, Mathematician, National Medal of Science, USA
_Ronald Breslow, Chemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Ricardo Bressani, Inst. of Nutrition, Guatemalan & Third World Academies, Guatemala
_Hermann Bruck, Astronomer, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Great Britain
_Gerardo Budowski, Natural Resources, Univ. Para La Paz, Costa Rica
_E. Margaret Burbidge, Astronomer, National Medal of Science, USA
_Robert Burris, Biochemist, Wolf Prize in Agriculture, USA
_Glenn Burton, Geneticist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Adolph Butenandt, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Fmr. President, Max Planck Inst.; Germany
_Sergio Cabrera, Biologist, Univ. de Chile, Chile
_Paulo C. Campos, Medical scientist, Philippine & Third World Academies, Philippines
_Ennio Candotti, Physicist; President, Brazilian Soc. Adv. of Science; Brazil
_Henri Cartan, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, France
_Carlos Chagas, Biologist; Univ. de Rio de Janeiro; Fmr. President, Pontifical Academy of Sciences; Brazil
_Sivaramakrishna Chandrasekhar, Center for Liquid Crystal Research, India
_Georges Charpak, Nobel laureate, Physics; France
_Joseph Chatt, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, Great Britain
_Shiing-Shen Chern, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, China & USA
_Christopher Chetsanga, Biochemist, Affican & Third World Academies, Zimbabwe
_Morris Cohen, Engineering, National Medal of Science, USA
_Stanley Cohen, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Stanley N. Cohen, Geneticist, Wolf Prize in Medicine, USA
_Mildred Cohn, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_E. J. Corey, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, USA
_John Cornforth, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Hector Croxatto, Physiologist, Pontifical & Third World Academies, Chile
_Paul Crutzen, Chemist, Tyler Prize, Germany
_Partha Dasgupta, Economist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_Jean Dausset, Nobel laureate, Medicine; France
_Ogulande Robert Davidson, Univ. Res. & Dev. Serv., African Acad., Sierra Leone
_Margaret Davis, Ecologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Luis D'Croz, Limnologist, Univ. de Panama, Panama
_Gerard Debreu, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
_Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel laureate, Physics; France
_Johann Deisenhofer, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Germany & USA
_Frederica de Laguna, Anthropologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Paul-Yves Denis, Geographer, Academy of Sciences, Canada
_Pierre Deligne, Mathematician, Crafoord Prize, France
_Frank Dixon, Pathologist, Lasker Award, USA
_Johanna Dobereiner, Biologist, First Sec., Brazilian Academy of Sci.; Pontifical & Third World Academies, Brazil
_Joseph Doob, Mathematician, National Medal of Science, USA
_Renato Dulbecco, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Heneri Dzinotyiweyi, Mathematician, African & Third World Academies, Zimbabwe
_Manfred Eigen, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Germany
_Samuel Eilenberg, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, USA
_Mahdi Elmandjra, Economist; Vice President, African Academy of Sciences; Morocco
_Paul Ehrlich, Biologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_Thomas Eisner, Biologist, Tyler Prize, USA
_Mohammed T. El-Ashry, Environmental scientist, Third World Academy, Egypt & USA
_Gertrude Elion, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Aina Elvius, Astronomer, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
_K. O. Emery, Oceanographer, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Paul Erdos, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, Hungary
_Richard Ernst, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Switzerland
_Vittorio Ersparmer, Pharmacologist, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
_Sandra Faber, Astronomer, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Nina Federoff, Embryologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Herman Feshbach, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Inga Fischer-Hjalmars, Biologist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
_Michael Ellis Fisher, Physicist, Wolf Prize in Physics, Great Britain & USA
_Val Fitch, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Daflinn Follesdal, President, Norwegian Academy of Science; Norway
_William Fowler, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Otto Frankel, Geneticist, Australian Academy of Sciences, Australia
_Herbert Friedman, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
_Jerome Friedman, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Konstantin V. Frolov Engineer; Vice President, Russian Academy of Sciences; Russia
_Kenichi Fukui, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Japan
_Madhav Gadgil, Ecologist, National Science Academy, India
_Mary Gaillard, Physicist, National Academy of Sciences. USA
_Carleton Gajdusek, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Robert Gallo, Research Scientist, Lasker Award, USA
_Rodrigo Gamez ,Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Costa Rica
_Antonio Garcia-Bellido, Biologist, Univ. Auto. Madrid, Royal Society, Spain
_Leopoldo Garcia-Collin, Physicist, Latin American & Third World Academies, Mexico
_Percy Garnham, Royal Society & Pontifical Academy, Great Britain
_Richard Garwin, Physicist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Georgii Georgiev, Biologist, Lenin Prize, Russia
_Humam Bishara Ghassib, Physicist, Third World Academy, Jordan
_Ricardo Giacconi, Astronomer, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
_Eleanor J. Gibson, Psychologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Marvin Goldberger, Physicist; Fmr. President, Calif. Inst. of Tech., USA
_Maurice Goldhaber, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
_Donald Glaser, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Sheldon Glashow, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_James Gowans, Wolf Prize in Medicine, France
_Roger Green, Anthropologist, Royal Society, New Zealand
_Peter Greenwood, Ichthyologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_Edward Goldberg, Chemist, Tyler Prize, USA
_Coluthur Gopolan, Nutrition Foundation of India, Indian & Third World Academies, India
_Stephen Jay Gould, Paleontologist, Author, Harvard Univ., USA
_Roger Guillemin, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Herbert Gutowsky, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, USA
_Erwin Hahn, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
_Gonzalo Halffter, Ecologist, Inst. Pol. Nac. ,Mexico
_Kerstin Hall, Endocrinologist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
_Mohammed Ahmed Hamdan, Mathematician, Third World, Academy, Jordan
_Adnan Hamoui, Mathematician, Third World, Academy, Kuwait
_A. M. Harun-ar Rashid, Physicist; Sec., Bangladesh, Academy of Sci., Bangladesh
_Mohammed H. A. Hassan, Physicist; Exec. Sec., Third World Academy of Sciences; Sudan & Italy
_Ahmed Hassanli, Chemist, African Academy of Sciences, Tanzania & Kenya
_Herbert Hauptman, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
_Stephen Hawking, Mathematician, Wolf Prize in Physics, Great Britain
_Elizabeth Hay, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Dudley Herschbach, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, USA
_Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Canada
_Antony Hewish, Nobel laureate, Physics; Great Britain
_George Hitchings, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Roald Hoffman, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
_Robert Holley, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Nick Holonyak, Electrical Engineer, National Medal of Science, USA
_Lars Hormander, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, Sweden
_Dorothy Horstmann, Epidemiologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_John Houghton, Meteorologist; Chairman, Science Working Group, IPCC; Great Britain
_Sarah Hrdy, Anthropologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Kenneth Hsu, Geologist, Third World Academy, China & Switzerland
_Kun Huang, Physicist, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
_Hiroshi Inose, Electrical Engineer; Vice President, Engineering Academy; Japan
_Turner T. Isoun, Pathologist, African Academy of Sciences, Nigeria
_Francois Jacob, Nobel laureate, Medicine; France
_Carl-Olof Jacobson Zoologist; Sec-Gen., Royal Academy of Sciences; Sweden
_Dorothea Jameson, Psychologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Daniel Janzen, Biologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_Cecilia Jarlskog, Physicist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
_Louise Johnson, Biophysicist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_Harold Johnston, Chemist, Tyler Prize, USA
_Victor A. Kabanov, Chemist, Lenin Prize in Science, Russia
_Jerome Karle, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Robert Kates, Geographer, National Medal of Science, USA
_Frederick I. B. Kayanja, Vice-Chnclr., Mbarara Univ., Third World Academy, Uganda
_Joseph Keller, Mathematician, National Medal of Science, USA
_Henry Kendall, Nobel laureate, Physics; Chairman, Union of Concerned Scientists; USA
_John Kendrew, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Elisabeth Kessler, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
_Maung-U Khin, Pediatrician, Third World Academy, Myamnar & USA
_Gurdev Khush, Agronomist, International Rice Institute, Indian Natl. Sci. Academy, India & Philippines
_Susan Kieffer, Geologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Klaus von Klitzing, Nobel laureate, Physics; Germany
_Aaron Klug, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, Great Britain
_E. F. Knipling, Agricultural Researcher, National Medal of Science, USA
_Walter Kohn, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Janos Kornai, Economist, Hungarian Academy of Science, Hungary
_Aderemi Kuku, Mathematician, African & Third World Acads., Nigeria
_Ikuo Kushiro, Geologist, Japan Academy, Japan
_Devendra Lal, Geophysicist, National Science Academy, India
_Gerardo Lamas-Muller, Biologist, Museo de Historia Natural, Peru
_Torvard Laurent, Physiological chemist; President, Royal Academy of Sciences; Sweden
_Leon Lederman, Nobel laureate, Physics; Chr., Amer. Assn. Adv. Sci.; USA
_Sang Soo Lee, Physicist, Korean & Third World Academies, Rep. of Korea
_Yuan T. Lee, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
_Susan Leeman Pharmacologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Jean Marie Lehn, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; France
_Wassily Leontief, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
_Luna Leopold, Geologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Louis Leprince-Ringuet, Physicist, French & Pontifical Academies, France
_Vladilen Letokhov, Physicist, Lenin Prize in Science, Russia
_Rita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA & Italy
_Li Chang-lin, Environmental Sciences, Fudan University, China
_Shan Tao Liao, Mathematician, Chinese & Third World Academies, China
_William Lipscomb, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Jane Lubchenco, Zoologist; President-Elect, Ecological Soc. of Amer.; USA
_Christopher Magazda, Limnologist, African Academy of Sciences, Zimbabwe
_Lydia Phindile Makhubu, Chemist, Third World & African Academies, Swaziland
_Khursheed Ahmad Malik, Microbiologist, Pakistan & Third World Academies, Pakistan & Germany
_Lynn Margulis, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Paul Marks, Oncologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_George Martine, Inst. for Study of Society, Population, & Nature; Brazil
_Frederico Mayor, Biochemist; Dir. Gen., UNESCO, Spain & France
_Ernst Mayr, Zoologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Maclyn McCarty, Wolf Prize in Medicine, USA
_James McConnell, Physicist, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Ireland
_Digby McLaren, Past President, Royal Society of Canada; Canada
_James Meade, Nobel laureate, Economics; Great Britain
_Jerrold Meinwald, Chemistry, Tyler Prize, USA
_M. G. K Menon, Physicist; President, International Council of Scientific Unions; India
_Gennady Mesiatz, Physicist; Vice President, Russian Academy of Sciences; Russia
_Jan Michalski, Biologist, Polish Academy of Science, Poland
_Hartmut Michel, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Germany
_Brenda Milner, Neurologist, Academy of Sciences, Canada
_Cesar Milstein, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Argentina & Great Britain
_Franco Modigliani, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
_Andrei Monin, Oceanologist, State Prize, Russia
_Marcos Moshinsky, Physicist, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Mexico
_Nevill Mott, Nobel laureate, Physics; Great Britain
_Teruaki Mukaiyama, Chemist, Japan Academy, Japan
_Walter Munk, Geophysicist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Anne Murray, Ethnographer, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
_Joseph Murray, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Noreen Murray, Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_Lawrence Mysak, Meteorologist; Vice President, Academy of Science, Royal Society of Canada; Canada
_Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, Astrophysicist, Indian & Third World Academies, India
_Anwar Nasim, Biologist, Third World Academy, Saudi Arabia
_Kim Nasmyth, Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain & Austria
_James Neel, Geneticist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Louis Neel, Nobel laureate, Physics; France
_Yuval Ne'eman, Physicist, Natl. Acad. of Sci. & Humanities, Israel
_Oleg M. Nefedov, Chemist; Vice President, Russian Academy of Sciences; Russia
_Erwin Neher, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Germany
_Marshall Nirenberg, Biochemist; Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Yasutomi Nishizuka, Biochemist, Lasker Award, Japan
_John S. Nkoma, Physicist, Third World Academy, Botswana
_Paul Nchoji Nkvvi, Anthropologist, African Academy, Cameroon
_Howard Odum, Ecologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_Bede Nwoye Okigbo, Agricultural Scientist; Dir., U.N. Unv. Pgm. Natrl. Res. in Afr.; Nigeria & Kenya
_Ayub Khan Ommaya, Neurobiologist, Third World Academy, Pakistan & USA
_Cyril Agodi Onwumechili, Physicist, Fmr. Pres., Nigerian Acad. of Sciences, Nigeria & Great Britain
_Mary Jane Osborn, Microbiologist, National Academy of Scientists, USA
_Yuri Ossipyan, Physicist; Vice President, Russian Academy of Sciences; Russia
_Autzr Singh Paintal, Physiologist, Fmr. President, Indian National Science Academy, India
_George Pake, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
_George Palade, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Mary Lou Pardue, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate, Chemistry & Peace, USA
_Barbara Pearse, Molecular Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_Muhammed Abed Peerally, Biologist, Third World Academy, Mauritius
_Manuel Peimbert, Astronomer, Univ. Nac. Aut. de Mexico, Mexico
_Roger Penrose, Mathematician, Wolf Prize in Physics, Great Britain
_John Philip, Agricultural Science, Australian Academy of Science, Australia
_Lilian Pickford, Physiologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_John R. Pierce, Electrical Engineer, National Medal of Science, USA
_John Polanyi, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Canada
_George Porter, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Ilya Prigogine, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Belgium
_Giampietro Puppi, Physicist, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Italy
_Edward Purcell, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Atta ur-Rahman, Chemist, Pakistani & Third World Academies, Pakistan
_G. N. Ramachandran, Mathematician, Inst. of Science, India
_Tiruppattur Ramakrishnan, Physicist, Indian & Third World Academies, India
_Chintamani Rao, Inst. of Science, Indian and Pontifical Academies, India
_Eduardo Rapoport, Ecologist, Third World Academy, Argentina
_Marianne Rasmuson, Geneticist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
_Peter Raven, Director, Missouri Botanical Garden; National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Martin Rees, Astronomer, Royal Society & Pontifical Academy, Great Britain
_Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, Anthropologist, Columbian & Third World Academies, Columbia
_Tadeus Reichstein, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Switzerland
_Frederick Reines, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Alexander Rich, Biologist, National & Pontifical Academies, USA
_Burton Richter, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Ralph Riley, Wolf Prize in Agriculture, Great Britain
_Claude Rimington, Inst. for Cancer Research, Norwegian Academy of Science, Norway
_Gustavo Rivas Mijares, Engineer; Fmr. President, Academy of Sciences, Venezuela
_Frederick Robbins, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Wendell Roelofs, Entomologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Betty Roots, Zoologist, Academy of Sciences, Canada
_Miriam Rothschild, Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
_Sherwood Rowland, Chemist; President, American Association for the Advancement of Science; USA
_Janet Rowley, Physician, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Carlo Rubbia, Nobel laureate, Physics, Italy & Switzerland
_Vera Rubin, Physicist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Yuri Rudenko, Energy Research Inst., State Prize laureate, Russia
_Elizabeth Russell, Jackson Laboratory, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Albert Sabin, Virologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Carl Sagan, Astrophysicist & Author, USA
_Roald Sagdeev, Physicist, Russian & Pontifical Academies, Russia & USA
_Ruth Sager, Geneticist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Farrokh Saidi, Surgeon, Third World Academy, Iran
_Abdus Salam, Nobel laureate, Physics; President, Third World Academy of Sciences, Pakistan & Italy
_Frederick Sanger, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Jose Sarukhan, Biologist, Third World Academy, Mexico
_Berta Scharrer,Neuroscientist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Richard Schultes, Botanist, Tyler Prize, USA
_Melvin Schwartz, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Julian Schwinger, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Glenn Seaborg, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Michael Sela, Weizmann Inst., Pontifical Academy of Science, Israel
_Arne Semb-Johansson, Entomologist, Norwegian Academy of Science, Norway
_Salimuzzaman Siddiqui, Chemist, Pontifical & Third World Academies, Pakistan
_Kai Siegbahn, Nobel laureate, Physics; Sweden
_Thomas Silou, Biochemist, African Academy of Sciences, Congo
_Herbert Simon, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
_Alexej Sitenko, Physicist, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Ukraine
_Jens Skou, Biophysicist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Denmark
_Charles Slack, Agricultural Science, Royal Society, New Zealand
_George Snell, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Roger Sperry, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Alexander Spirin, Biologistn Lenin Prize, Russia
_Earl Stadtman, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Thressa Stadtman, Biochemist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Ledyard Stebbins, Geneticist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Jack Steinberger, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA & Switzerland
_Janos Szentgothai, Fmr. President, Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Hungary
_Tan Jia-zhen, Geneticist, Shanghai Univ., China
_Andrezej Tarkowski, Embryologist, Polish [text missing]
_Valentine Telegdi, Wolf Prize in Physics, Switzerland
_Kirthi Tennakone, Physicist, Third World Academy, Sri Lanka
_Walter Thirring, Physicist, Austrian & Pontifical Academies, Austria
_Donnall Thomas, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Jan Tinbergen, Nobel laureate, Economics; Netherlands
_Samuel C. C. Ting, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_James Tobin, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
_Alexander Todd, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Susumu Tonegawa, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Japan & USA
_Cheng Kui Tseng, Oceanologist, Chinese & Third World Academies, China
_Hans Tuppy, Biochemist, Austrian & Pontifical Academies, Austria
_James Van Allen, Physicist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_Simon van der Meer, Nobel laureate, Physics; Netherlands & Switzerland
_John Vane, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Great Britain
_Harold Varmus, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Martha Vaughan, Biochemist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_George Wald, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Henrik Wallgren, Zoologist, Society of Science & Letters, Finland
_E. T. S. Walton, Nobel laureate, Physics, Ireland
_Prawase Wasi, Hematologist, Third World Academy, Thailand
_Gerald Wasserburg, Geophysicist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_James Watson, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Victor Weisskopf, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
_Thomas Weller, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Diter von Wettstein, Physiologist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Denmark
_Fred Whipple, Astronomer, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Gilbert White, Geographer, Tyler Prize, USA
_Torsten Wiesel, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Jerome Wiesner, Physicist, Fmr. President, Mass. Inst. of Tech., USA
_Maurice Wilkins, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Great Britain
_Geoffrey Wilkinson, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
_Richard Willems, Geneticist, Estonian Biocentre, Estonia
_Edward O. Wilson, Biologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
_Lawrence A. Wilson, Agricultural Science, Third World Academy, Trinidad
_Evelyn Witkin, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Yang Fujia, Physicist, Chinese & Third World Academies, China
_Alexander L. Yanshin, Geologist, Karpinsky Gold Medal, Russia
_Yongyuth Yuthavong, Biochemist; Director, National Sci. & Tech. Devl. Agency, Thailand
_Zhao Zhong-xian, Physicist, Chinese & Third World Academies, China
_Zhou Guang-zhao, Physicist; President, Chinese Academy of Sciences;, China
_Solly ZuckerInan, Zoologist, Royal Society, Great Britain

Over 1,500 members of national, regional, and international science academies have signed the Warning. Sixtynine nations from all parts of Earth are represented, including each of the twelve most populous nations and the nineteen largest economic powers. The full list includes a majority of the Nobel laureates in the sciences. Awards and institutional affiliations are listed for the purpose of identification only. The Nobel Prize in medicine is for physiology or medicine.

A WORLD SCIENTISTS' WARNING BRIEFING BOOK is available from the Union of Concerned Scientists. It provides the citations to support their WARNING.

Union of Concerned Scientists, 96 Church Street, Cambridge, Mass 02238-9105, USA Phone: 617-547-5552; FAX: 617-864-9405
<http://www.dieoff.org/Yelbull.gif> http://www.ucsusa.org/ <http://www.dieoff.org/Ornball.gif> [email protected]

[Warning issued on November 18, 1992, transcribed by Jay Hanson?apologies for any typos]

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 08:01 PM
The core assumption of environmentalism seems to be that human beings have an obligation to preserve the environment for its own sake.
I don&#39;t think that&#39;s always the case. Many people consider themselves environmentalists because they want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, etc., not because of a mystical commitment to Mother Earth or whatever.

The organizations you&#39;ve mentioned are not the only, or the largest, environmental groups, and I&#39;m not sure that any group really speaks for the milliions who are concerned with environmental protection.


In short, man cannot increase productivity without discovering more advanced forms of manipulation and violation of his natural surroundings.

I think this is not a very Marxist approach, counterposing "man" to "nature". Certainly it is not correct to say that the road to lasting human progress is the "violation" of nature.

Engels pointed out, in contrast:


In short, the animal merely uses its environment, and brings about changes in it simply by its presence; man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. This is the final, essential distinction between man and other animals, and once again it is labour that brings about this distinction.

Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture they were laying the basis for the present forlorn state of those countries. When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour still more furious torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time spreading scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature -- but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly.
source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm)
Emphasis added to point out exactly where Vanguard1917 is wrong IMO.

Marx&#39;s point that

all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the labourer, but of robbing the soil (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm) also remains true today.

[LSD]

Indigo, was there a point to that post?

No one here is denying that human actions can, and most likely are, having deleterious effects on the environment...

...the question is "what do we do"?



1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth&#39;s systems we depend on.

2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.

Well, first of all, this is NEVER going to happen under capitalism, given that any system based on personal "wealth creation" is fundamentally incapable of considering larger issues.

Secondly, we shouldn&#39;t even be considering this, until we have a way to do it that won&#39;t result in mass famine, starvation, sufffering, and death. As it stands today, in present geo-socioeconomic conditions, any attempt at significant environmental policy, in effect any policy that has a chance of working, will result in death. We cannot "save" the environment at the cost of the very people we&#39;re ostensibly helping by "saving the environment" in the first place&#33;

We need to change the underlying structure first.


3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

Again, this can only happen in a society which is capable of altruism or "big picture" thinking.

That&#39;s not capitalism.


5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

Absolutely&#33;

But this will not occur unless there is a fundamental shift in society. As it stands, religion, supernaturalism, and superstition enslave the women of the world far more than men themselves can. In order to free all enslaved peoples, be they women, minorities, the poor, society itself must radically transform.


4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

Ding&#33;

That&#39;s it&#33;

We must "eliminate poverty". But doing so is intrinsically impossible within a capitalist framework. Even capitalists agree that, fundamentally, poverty is implicit in any capital-based economic structure. That will never change&#33;

So, once again, the environment is important, it matters, In the end, it&#39;s all we have and relying that science will somehow "save us" from our own short-sightedness would be as naive as the Easter Islander that cut down the last tree. But nothing we can do under capitalism will ultimately matter and that little we can do will be at too high a cost. The sad truth is that the present world order is such that genuine environmental progress cannot occur. It&#39;s too irrational, too desperate, and, fundamentally, too capitalistic. We will deal with the environment, but it isn&#39;t that time yet. We cannot focus on saving trees untill we&#39;ve managed to save ourselves, because we certainly haven&#39;t done so yet.

[Vanguard1917]

Severian, thanks for that Engels source. I&#39;d actually never come across it before.

When i used the word &#39;violation&#39; in that context, I meant that human productive action is most often not in agreement with the &#39;laws of nature&#39;: i.e. we cannot let nature run its own course - we have to intervene if we want to be productive beings on this earth. I would not counterpose humans with nature; in fact, &#39;violating&#39; nature (for lack of a better term) is surely an act of humanity working with nature. We are not &#39;conquerers of a foreign people&#39; because nature is a source from which we produce. But yes, we must learn to &#39;conquer&#39; nature. This requires us to master nature, to understand its laws so that we can manipulate them in the interests of humanity.


But all the planned action of all animals has never succeeded in impressing the stamp of their will upon the earth. That was left for man.

In short, the animal merely uses its environment, and brings about changes in it simply by its presence; man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. (my italics)

[KC]

Man will never master nature.



Secondly, we shouldn&#39;t even be considering this, until we have a way to do it that won&#39;t result in mass famine, starvation, sufffering, and death. As it stands today, in present geo-socioeconomic conditions, any attempt at significant environmental policy, in effect any policy that has a chance of working, will result in death. We cannot "save" the environment at the cost of the very people we&#39;re ostensibly helping by "saving the environment" in the first place&#33;

Why will there be mass famine?

[coda]

LSD, of course there is a point to that post. It&#39;s the qualified opinion of a forum of independent scientists who believe the environment is reaching a crisis point.

I don&#39;t think it has to be a choice between helping the people or setting up procedures or policies to protect the environment,--- in de facto, protecting the people from an inhospitable, increasingly poisonous, polluted planet and doing that under the current system.


<<Secondly, we shouldn&#39;t even be considering this, until we have a way to do it that won&#39;t result in mass famine, starvation, sufffering, and death. As it stands today, in present geo-socioeconomic conditions, any attempt at significant environmental policy, in effect any policy that has a chance of working, will result in death. We cannot "save" the environment at the cost of the very people we&#39;re ostensibly helping by "saving the environment" in the first place&#33; >>>


How would any type of pro-environment policy result in mass famine, starvation, suffering and death?


>>We cannot focus on saving trees untill we&#39;ve managed to save ourselves, because we certainly haven&#39;t done so yet.>>

It&#39;s not about "saving trees" for the sake of the tree. Trees have a purpose within the ecosystem. They absorb carbon dioxide and provide oxygen among other things.

[coda]

Besides, LSD, it goes much deeper than "saving trees". that is just an uninformed statement.

You can check your area&#39;s environmental impact here
http://www.scorecard.org/

[apathy maybe]

Humans are don’t have a god given right to do whatever the fuck they want to the natural world. Humans are just another type of animal. Ignore the fucking Bible that says that humans have domain over all the world, look at it from a scientific point of view. We are not special&#33;

So if you start from a belief that humans are somehow special (ignoring science) you might get to the point which says that the environment is there just for humans. Then you might hate environmentalists.

But if you start from a science point of view, then you would realise that humans evolved just like other animals. Then you draw your conclusions from this starting point. Humans are not special except we have managed to become the most powerful species.

Other animals, communicate (with each other and humans), use tools, empathise, farm (both plants and other animals), co-opperate.

Humans are different to most other animals in another regard, we are a plague species. Look at a graph of population growth over the last 2000 years, it is exponential. This is a classic sign of plague. Look here.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...opulations.html (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html)
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...W/WorldBank.gif (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/W/WorldBank.gif)
While
http://whyfiles.org/096y6b/
http://whyfiles.org/096y6b/images/popgrowth.gif

Sooner or later the population will crash. Then no more population worries.



Oh I haven’t really read much of the thread, but I do hold the human species in low regard.

[LSD]

How would any type of pro-environment policy result in mass famine, starvation, suffering and death?


Because under the present socio-economic model, any limitation on "environmentally harmful activities" will lead directly to increased poverty and increased suffering.

The third world cannot stop using coal or oil or natural gas. The third world cannot stop cutting trees. The third world cannot stop dumping or clean up exhaust or clean up discharge. Sure a good deal of the first world could...but it won&#39;t, it would just move to the third, where any such policy atempts will lead directly to misery and death...

....until we destroy capitalism.


It&#39;s not about "saving trees" for the sake of the tree. Trees have a purpose within the ecosystem. They absorb carbon dioxide and provide oxygen among other things.

Yes, I did take first year biology, but thank you for the refresher...

The point is that trees are not in any danger of "disappearing", nor are we at the "Easter Island" crisis yet, where there&#39;s but one tree left and we&#39;re about to cut it down. Let&#39;s take a look at north America, for example. There are presently the same number of trees as there were 150 years ago&#33;&#33; The same goes for most of Europe. In Japan, for instance, there are now far more trees then there were 100 years ago. Indeed, 300 years ago Japan was virtually out of trees, but because of a progressive state policy, today Japan has the highest proportion of tree covered land of all industrialized nations.

Are we losing some trees in the third world? Yes.
But is there any realistic way within the current economic structure to change that without causing suffering, misery, and death? No.

And, besides, as already covered, there will still be more than enough trees in the first world, not to mention the fact that all tress are not going to be lost anytime soon, not even in the third world.

Finally, if you really want to help trees, there&#39;s a very simple way to do it: Fight capitalism&#33; Only when capitalism has been repalced, will there be any chance of an effective, realistic, and humane environmental policy.


So if you start from a belief that humans are somehow special (ignoring science) you might get to the point which says that the environment is there just for humans. Then you might hate environmentalists.


Actually, then you might become an environmentalist.

Environmentalists have this bizzarre conception of the world in which humans somehow have a "duty" to protect the environment. As you yourself admit, humans are nothing but animals. As with any other animal, our only obligation is to ourselves. Now, this does, of course, mean that we must preserve an ecosystem in which we can survive. It also means that we must be able to breathe the air and drink the water, but it does not mean that we must preserve the ecosystemic status quo.

If we can find a way to help ourselves that does not help this theoretical "natural ballance", then we must investigate that possibility as well. Out only priority must be "what effect will this have on humanity". Only once those concerns are met can we think about more luxurious concepts like "nature" and "lushness".

Environmentalists feel that there is something innate in nature, that somehow the way things are is the way that they "must" remain. But "nature" isn&#39;t even a real concept, it&#39;s just an easy short-hand for everything organic that isn&#39;t us. Well...fine, good, it&#39;s an easy way to refer to a complex idea, but the idea that just because we have a simple word for it, it must be a simple comcept, or more insidiously, that it must be a good concept.... that&#39;s the fatal flaw of the current environmental movement.

Again, I&#39;m not saying that we should "forget" about the environment, I&#39;m just saying that we have to prioritize and rationalize:

1) We can only deal with the environment after we&#39;ve dealt with capitalism.
2) We can only deal with the environment as far as is needed for our own human bennefit.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 28 2005, 11:52 AM
Because under the present socio-economic model, any limitation on "environmentally harmful activities" will lead directly to increased poverty and increased suffering.
No, any such limitation will lead directly to decreased profits.


The third world cannot stop using coal or oil or natural gas. The third world cannot stop cutting trees.

Straw man. Obviously a complete ban on fossil fuels or tree-cutting would be impossible...under any social system.


The third world cannot stop dumping or clean up exhaust or clean up discharge.

Why not?

Poverty is not a result of regulation that makes industry unprofitable. The employers pay as little as they can get away with. It&#39;s not because they cannot afford to pay more.

Certainly not in the case of imperialist, so-called transnationals, operating in the Third World, which are some of the biggest polluters.


The point is that trees are not in any danger of "disappearing", nor are we at the "Easter Island" crisis yet, where there&#39;s but one tree left and we&#39;re about to cut it down. [Let&#39;s take a look at north America, for example.

Let&#39;s take a look at Haiti, for example. Have you seen photos of the Haiti & the Dominican Republic from the air? It&#39;s one of the few borders you can physically see, because Haiti is so deforested.

http://www.starfishministries.org/projects/agricultural/haiti_border.gif

I gotta say, this has not helped Haiti&#39;s population...but has led "directly" to floods that have killed a great many people, loss of topsoil, etc.

And on the global scale, deforestation is in fact contributing greatly to the greenhouse effect.

Solutions? I&#39;d suggest two immediate measures: cancel the Third World debt and land redistribution. As the Movement of the Landless in Brazil has pointed out, land-hungry people are cutting forests while a great deal of already-cleared land remains idle in the hands of large landowners. What&#39;s more, deforestation leads to droughts that leave much land unusable.


But is there any realistic way within the current economic structure to change that without causing suffering, misery, and death?

There is no realistic way within the current economic structure to change it, period. That&#39;s true of all of humanity&#39;s major problems.

It&#39;s not an argument against environmental protections, it&#39;s an argument for leading the fight for environmental protections into the fight for a socialist revolution.


Only when capitalism has been repalced, will there be any chance of an effective, realistic, and humane environmental policy.

Indeed. Any chance.

It&#39;s not guaranteed, as the Soviet and Chinese experiences show, that environmental policy will be better after the overthrow of capitalism. It becomes possible to put human needs, including the need for environmental protection, before profit.

If decisions are in the hands of bureaucratic mismanagers who justify anything in the name of economic productivity, or of people who think, hey, there are still some trees left....then it still ain&#39;t gonna happen.


But "nature" isn&#39;t even a real concept, it&#39;s just an easy short-hand for everything organic that isn&#39;t us.

False, as Marx and Engels pointed out, nature includes us.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 20 2005, 05:11 AM
The environment matters, but people matter more.

Current environmental policy is abysmal, but that&#39;s mostly due to capitalism. Capitalism artificially overstimulates demand and unnescessarily pushes production to increase "profits". But any economic system has to account for the fact that 6 billion people aren&#39;t going to feed themselves. Too much of the environmental movement is made up of rich white Euro-Americans who have no idea what real starvation is like. Sure, we all like trees and cude fuzzy animals, but the third wold isn&#39;t going to feed itself with soy.

If it&#39;s a choice between saving the rain forrest and ending world hunger, I know where my vote is.

Timbbbbbbberrrrrrr&#33;
we already have enough food to feed the world three times, we just need to share.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:41 AM
And humans are the only species capable of solving environmental problems.


Places like the rainforest provide medicine. Of cuorse, the counter-argument to that would be they could be grown in artificial environments. But how do you plan on producing oxygen when all the trees are gone? I still don&#39;t see why we should put humanity first. I mean why not put them equally? We&#39;re the ones who enslave ourselves, enslave animals, and destroy the environment. Honestly the humans seem to be the problem.

Trees don&#39;t &#39;produce&#39; oxygen - They merely turn CO2 into O2 during the day and O2 into CO2 during the night; their net effect on the O2/CO2 balance is ZERO. Read any biology/botany book.
I&#39;m trying to find out where O2 turns back into CO2 in any plant. You&#39;re talking about the Dark Reastion in the latter half that creates this "equal imput/output"? Other than that all my other research shows that plants (which include trees&#33;&#33;) raise the oxygen level.

[Severian]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+Apr 28 2005, 09:24 PM--> (ComradeChris &#064; Apr 28 2005, 09:24 PM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 12:41 AM
Trees don&#39;t &#39;produce&#39; oxygen - They merely turn CO2 into O2 during the day and O2 into CO2 during the night; their net effect on the O2/CO2 balance is ZERO. Read any biology/botany book.
I&#39;m trying to find out where O2 turns back into CO2 in any plant. You&#39;re talking about the Dark Reastion in the latter half that creates this "equal imput/output"? Other than that all my other research shows that plants (which include trees&#33;&#33;) raise the oxygen level. [/b]
Yes, that&#39;s right. They also remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is important to global climate change. Noxion should take his own advice and read "any biology book." Reminds me of James Watt (Reagan&#39;s Interior Secretary) and his claim that trees were a major cause of pollution.

(Plants do burn glucose for energy/respire of course, using oxygen, but they use far less than they produce. Photosynthesis has to be greater than plant respiration, or plants couldn&#39;t grow. All that cellulose in tree trunks is carbon taken out of the atmosphere.)

And LSD&#39;s claim that nothing can be done until socialism arrives reminds me of James Watt and his claim that there was no need to worry about the environment because the Second Coming of Christ would happen soon....anybody who postpones a concrete struggle until socialism, is making it a promised utopia, not an expression of the living class struggle.

IMO a better example was set by the revolutionary government in Burkina Faso from 1985-87, headed by Thomas Sankara. Burkina Faso&#39;s one of the poorest countries in the world, but Sankara didn&#39;t act as if the welfare of its people and of its natural environment were counterposed; on the contrary stopping the spread of the desert was and is a necessity for human life.

The Burkina revolutionary government didn&#39;t wait for socialism or anything else to begin mobilizing working people to plant trees and prevent the spread of the desert. Capitalist governments, of course, are unlikely to follow similar policies...but that doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t demand they do so.

Part of a speech by Sankara to a world environmental conference (http://www.marxmail.org/quotes/thomas_sankara.htm)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:34 PM
This is untrue. Humans had a natural way of living before this society came to be. They used to fit in the balance of things. Before farming was conceived, in primitive indian tribes, this balance existed. Of course, that was before this society. Increasing populations and the problem of increasing productivity only started when this society was born; when farming was first implemented.
Stable populations, sure; people killed their excess babies or starved when they exceeded the numbers that could be supported by a fixed amount of naturally occurring foods.

In balance with nature, not necessarily. Australian aborigines, hunting with fire, made Australia a lot more arid and sparsely vegetated. The first humans to reach the Americas may well have killed off most of its large animals; certainly there are unusually few large species native to the Americas. (And none suitable for domestication to pull plows or carts, which had a profound impact on the development of civilization in this hemisphere.)

My point is, it&#39;s a mistake to idealize primitive societies. Humanity will not solve its problems by leaving nature unchanged - nor has humanity ever done so.

We must understand nature better, and be careful in the changes we make, since they so often have unintended consequences. Above all, gain the capacity to make these decisions consciously, rather than leaving them to the invisible hand of the market and the squabbles of conflicting states...

[Black Dagger]

Australian aborigines, hunting with fire, made Australia a lot more arid and sparsely vegetated.

First of all, it&#39;s Aboriginal people or Aboriginal Australians, not &#39;aborigines&#39;, are you american or American? I assume (as you&#39;re not from oz) that you&#39;re ignorant on this issue, but &#39;aborigines&#39; is an offensive term rooted in Australias COLONISATION. It&#39;s a colonial term for &#39;Australias natives&#39; (another offensive term), so in future, Aboriginal people, or Aboriginal Australians or Australia&#39;s Indigenous peoples. I dont mean to be a &#39;linguistic nazi&#39;, but &#39;aborigines&#39; is racist bullshit, and it irks me to no end (obivously).

As far as the content of your actual statement, i&#39;ve never heard of the scenario that you&#39;re suggesting, hit me up with some sources please. Aboriginal people do not use &#39;back-burning&#39; exclusively for hunting (nor was this by any means the &#39;major&#39; or most commonly used method of hunting), nor did/do all groups use it, Australia is huge fucking continent, with a climate that is as diverse as any, from snowy mountains to scorching desert. Moreover, much of the native fauna REQUIRES fire in order to germinate, that is part of the process of &#39;back burning&#39;, deliberate bush-fires. And in fact, today, some areas are plagued by annual fires, precisely because the controlled burning processes that Aboriginal people did/do are not done on the same scale. &#39;Back burning&#39; eliminates lots of the excess left on the ground, leaves, kindling etc., as well as allowing the germination of some species of plants. The fact that this excess is not burnt away means that ever year, when summer heats up, many parts of oz are hit by bushfires (natually ocurring), which could be insulated by controlled &#39;back-burning&#39; (but obviously not eliminated).

Are you suggesting that the australian continent was once completely temperate (more or less)? There are parts of Australia (the interior, western and north-north western parts) which are largely arid, but their are parts (north east, east, south, and south west-sort of), which are not. They&#39;re different climate zones. I doubt (although if you can supply me with sources im willing to check out your theory), that the controlled burning of bushland, by SOME Aboriginal people in SOME parts of Australia, made australia significantly more &#39;arid&#39; or &#39;sparsely vegetated&#39;.

[LSD]

No, any such limitation will lead directly to decreased profits.

But under the present economic system a lack of profits for a coporation means that they switch to a different country, which means that many people are fired directly, or lose supportive occupations.

For local companies it simply means that they "compensate" by charging more (which means that consumers suffer) or by firings (which means that workers suffer).


There is no realistic way within the current economic structure to change it, period. That&#39;s true of all of humanity&#39;s major problems.

Correct.

Again, I am not saying that environmental issues aren&#39;t important, merely that we must prioritize. We cannot save the environment under capitalism, so it&#39;s a futile effort. Worse, it&#39;s an effort that is liable to cause suffering in its futility. Therefore we should concentrate on social revolution and then worry about our ecosystem.

In that order.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 03:11 PM

No, any such limitation will lead directly to decreased profits.

But under the present economic system a lack of profits for a coporation means that they switch to a different country, which means that many people are fired directly, or lose supportive occupations.
Which works equally well as an argument against going on strike, demanding higher wages, social programs financed by taxes on the rich, or fighting against capital in any other way. Yes, fighting back means capital moves. That&#39;s one reason why it&#39;s necessary to make the fight worldwide.

Everything you&#39;ve said against making environmental demands on capitalism, works equally well for making other demands on capitalism.

So we&#39;re left with preaching socialist revolution in the abstract. Guess what? We&#39;ll never get there that way. Revolution grows out of struggles around concrete demands.

This is one of those basic things: what is communism? As Section II of the Manifesto explains, it&#39;s not an abstract doctrine, it&#39;s an expression of the workers&#39; concrete struggles, with no interests separate and apart from those of our class.

***

Black Dagger, words are the cheapest (and most meaningless) of all affirmative action programs; the ruling class could ask for nothing better than to have everyone obsessing about a (constantly changing) vocabulary of exactly the right terms. Australian aborigines vs aboriginal australians, tomato tomahto. As long as people are unfree, no set of words will be satisfactory, and any set of words will probably acquire a derogatory connotation. Leading to a demand for a new set of words...

As for the substantive question: I&#39;m not anything like an expert on it, and apparently there&#39;s some debate among people who are. There seems to be agreement, though, that fire-using hunter-gatherers had a major impact on Australia&#39;s ecosystem, though there&#39;s debate on what the direction was. So much for "in balance with nature".

one scientists&#39; opinion. (http://savanna.ntu.edu.au/publications/savanna_links4/aboriginal_burning.html) "Lastly, it may have helped to maintain structurally open vegetation such as grasslands."

In other words, less forest...exactly what we&#39;ve been discussing in this thread.

[LSD]

So we&#39;re left with preaching socialist revolution in the abstract. Guess what? We&#39;ll never get there that way. Revolution grows out of struggles around concrete demands.

Yes, but we need to concentrate and prioritize those demands. We need to work specifically towards a revolutionary change in socioeconomic conditions. We&#39;ll never get there through environmentalism.

[Black Dagger]

Australian aborigines vs aboriginal australians, tomato tomahto. As long as people are unfree, no set of words will be satisfactory, and any set of words will probably acquire a derogatory connotation. Leading to a demand for a new set of words...

Maybe for someone who doesnt actually live in australia, race relations in this country are irrelevant, ok... cool, so it&#39;s fags, femi-nazi&#39;s, niggers and gooks for all, because no matter what term we use it will &#39;eventually&#39; be appropiated negatively, possibly, maybe. No one will ever be &#39;free&#39; from the tyranny of language-so it&#39;s ok to use terms that are plainly accepted by Indigenous people as offensive?

Jackie Huggins
" &#39;a&#39; is for apple, agile, anger, another, address, alphabet, but not Aboriginal. It is insulting and destructive to use a small "a". This spelling is extremely racist, as are the biologically racist definitions of part, quarter, half caste and full blood Aboriginals. It&#39;s like calling us boong, coon, nigger or abo, and just as blatant and condescending. It is also similar to spelling a Christian name such as dianne or gail like so. Negating our identity and nationality, it also tacks empathy and understanding as any Greek, Italian or Jew would understand - though they are paid the privilege of getting their names spelt with a capital. It is indicative of notions of inferiority/superiority of Blacks and whites [sic] in this country. On the basis of white superiority it could be presumed that the initiators of small "a" subconsciously act our their power games in order further to maintain their privileged position, and to keep Blacks in their "subjugated" line. The usual excuse is that there has been a "typo", but I have yet to see "europeans" or "australians" in Australian books. Why therefore does the typewriter possess an incredibly persistent disability when it comes to Aboriginal? My preference is for the term "Aboriginal" both as noun and adjective. "Aborigines" has long been a term used to classify and demean Aboriginal people in the repressive state of Queensland, particularly by the old Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement [sic]. It also assumes an "air of superiority" by a dominant culture and attempts, as does small "a", to operate as a divide and role tactic."

[Severian]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 1 2005, 10:15 AM
Maybe for someone who doesnt actually live in australia, race relations in this country are irrelevant, ok... cool, so it&#39;s fags, femi-nazi&#39;s, niggers and gooks for all,
Don&#39;t be deliberately obtuse. I seriously doubt aborigine vs Aboriginal is remotely comparable to "nigger". More like American Indian vs Native American, which I don&#39;t worry greatly about, and I don&#39;t think most Native Americans do either. Mostly this super-emphasis on terminology seems aimed at assuaging white guilt. I capitalize Black myself but I don&#39;t go on a huge tirade every time I notice somebody else doesn&#39;t.


No one will ever be &#39;free&#39; from the tyranny of language

Heh. I sure hope not. Joining Zerzan? Just kidding.

Dunno about you, but I think people will eventually be free from racist oppression, at which point this stuff will cease to be an issue. Nobody feels any need to keep renaming white people, y&#39;may have noticed.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 04:19 AM
Yes, but we need to concentrate and prioritize those demands.
Excuse me, but to say environmental demands shouldn&#39;t be the highest priority is different than what you&#39;ve been arguing: that they should be opposed.

IMO the emphasis on demands depends on the situation, and whatever will mobilize people, get them into action where they have a chance to learn from the experience of fighting back and gain self-confidence, etc.


We need to work specifically towards a revolutionary change in socioeconomic conditions. We&#39;ll never get there through environmentalism.

By environmentalism alone, certainly not. But that&#39;s true of any particular, limited cause. Who says environmental demands can&#39;t play a role? Working people do in fact go into struggle around environmental issues as well as many others -farmworkers against being poisoned by pesticides, for example - and any demand that motivates people to fight against the capitalists, and for the interests of working people, can help build class consciousness and organization.

[bed_of_nails]

I will never belong to a movement that is unconcerned about the environment. I view the lives of animals just as important as the lives of humans.

[ComradeChris]

Ok...so assume there&#39;s no more environment for the sake of the people who seem not to care about it. How do we produce oxygen...since there probably won&#39;t be enough plants to produce the amount of oxygen to support the growing population. Then the CO2 will build up in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and the deterioration of the ozone. Maybe we could genetically modify ourselves with photosynthetic pigments? I don&#39;t see how people cannot care about the environment. It&#39;s been our livelihood and the course of our being. It&#39;s like killing your own mother. And I agree with you bed_of_nails...I don&#39;t see why we are more important than other animals. If anything humans are worse because with our "advanced" thought we capture ourselves, and enslave one another, along with other animals.

[coda]

Yes, you are right Severian. gotta agree with you about replacement vocabulary. I am a large percentage "native American" to use the "politically correct" term. I remember a long time ago on this board when I referred to the above racial and cultural group as the properly designated term "Indian" and I was told point blankly by a nonnative Canadian that the "correct" term was "native American" and "Indian" was offensive and derogatory. Tee Hee&#33; Quite Amusing to say the least&#33; Canadians call their native Peoples "First Nations" --- All good and well and I&#39;m fine with that&#33; But, North American Aboriginal People prefer to be called Indians. They&#39;ve been called that for about 500 years, so why change it now just to appease the non-Indian conscience. Saying that "Indian" is a racist term just further displaces and dislocates Indian identity in this nation and tries to whitewash the reprehensible treatment of these people. They have is much bigger issues to fry than what to call themselves as a group or people.
So, Native American, Native Indian, Aboriginal, Indigenous -- all interchangeable.

What is racist is that the Government administrative Department of Indian Affairs falls under the larger category of the Department of Interior, which deals with Land not with Peoples. Now THAT is pretty insulting&#33;

[LSD]

Excuse me, but to say environmental demands shouldn&#39;t be the highest priority is different than what you&#39;ve been arguing: that they should be opposed.

...and when did I say that?&#33;?&#33;

Allow me to quote myself:

Originally posted by myself
Absolutely&#33;

The environment is important, largely because we&#39;re in it&#33;

There are genuine environmental problems in the world today, but there are more pressing problems in other areas; like hunger, thirst, misery, and death. I entirely agree that once we&#39;ve solved that later, we can worry about the former. But not before, at least certainly not in any way that will hinder any progress on the later. That is, if we can come up with a simple easy solution to current environmental issues that doesn&#39;t hurt the third world (or any marginalized group), than I&#39;m all for it. But too much of the environmental movement is willing to sacrifice [b[people for the sake of environmental "principles". The irrational reaction to GMO foods is a particularly telling example.

Whille I&#39;m the first to critisize projects such as the "terminator" gene and other profit-moving genetic alterations, the fact is that genetically modified foods are nescessary to deal with the fact that nearly a full third of humanity is not getting enough to eat. Maybe what the environmental movement needs to realize is that when someone is staving and watching their family and friends starve around them, they really don&#39;t give a fuck about the plight of some plants, nor should they.

Let&#39;s prioritize:

A) Help people.
B) Help animals
C) Help plants.

How about we don&#39;t focus on c until we&#39;ve made some headway with a....[/b]

(by the way, that was about 2 pages back)

Again, I don&#39;t oppose progressive environmental policies, I just don&#39;t think they&#39;re worth fighting for under capitalism. Firstly, they won&#39;t work, secondly they&#39;ll cause harm, and thirdly it&#39;s an inefficient and indirect route to social revolution.

Once, that revolution is complete then we can fix environmental problems. I have no problem with that whatsoever&#33; But I do have a problem with reflexive environmentalism. With rich white Euro-Americans who buy into semi-mystic concepts of "nature" or "greater law". That kind of superstitious supernaturalism is always harmful&#33;


I will never belong to a movement that is unconcerned about the environment. I view the lives of animals just as important as the lives of humans.

I don&#39;t see why we are more important than other animals. If anything humans are worse because with our "advanced" thought we capture ourselves, and enslave one another, along with other animals.

You see&#33; That&#39;s exactly the kind of bullshit I&#39;m talking about&#33; :lol:

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2005, 02:43 AM

Excuse me, but to say environmental demands shouldn&#39;t be the highest priority is different than what you&#39;ve been arguing: that they should be opposed.

...and when did I say that?&#33;?&#33;
I see. Just because you&#39;ve been arguing that any attempt to protect the environment will lead to mass starvation, that doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re opposed to it.

Didn&#39;t you write:

Secondly, we shouldn&#39;t even be considering this, until we have a way to do it that won&#39;t result in mass famine, starvation, sufffering, and death. As it stands today, in present geo-socioeconomic conditions, any attempt at significant environmental policy, in effect any policy that has a chance of working, will result in death.

You haven&#39;t dealt with my point about the utopian nature of postponing all problems and struggles &#39;til socialism, either.

Some of your points have validity in response to petty-bourgeois "Earth First" environmentalism, but you&#39;ve gone overboard into opposing all environmentalism, and painted yourself into a corner. It&#39;s OK to make mistakes, honest: everyone does it. You just have to be able to correct &#39;em....

[LSD]

I see. Just because you&#39;ve been arguing that any attempt to protect the environment will lead to mass starvation, that doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re opposed to it.

Again, I feel it will lead to mass starvation and general suffering under capitalism and that there&#39;s no way to enact real environmental changes without harming millions under capitalism.

Which is exactly what the quote you indicated says&#33;


Originally posted by emphasis added
Secondly, we shouldn&#39;t even be considering this, until we have a way to do it that won&#39;t result in mass famine, starvation, sufffering, and death. As it stands today, in present geo-socioeconomic conditions, any attempt at significant environmental policy, in effect any policy that has a chance of working, will result in death.

You see? I&#39;m not saying "any atttempt to protect the environment will lead to mass starvation", I&#39;m saying that under capitalism, any signifiant "attempt to protect the environment" will lead to famine, starvation, suffering, and death.


You haven&#39;t dealt with my point about the utopian nature of postponing all problems and struggles &#39;til socialism, either.

Not all problems and struggles, merely the ones which cannot be solved under capitalism. Which is, granted, a great deal of them&#33; All that that means, though, is that we should focus our energies on that revolutionary aim and not attempt "baby step" reforms. Not only because such moves strangthen the status quo, but because they are largely ineffectual anyways. This is particularly relevent in an area such as the environment.

Dealing with long-term ecosystemic concerns is so antithetical to short-term profit based thinking that real progressive environmental reforms will never occur under capitalism.


you&#39;ve gone overboard into opposing all environmentalism, and painted yourself into a corner.

Once again, I do not oppose logical environentalism. Clearly we need to preserve our ecosystem. I merely do not believe that this can be done nor should be attempted under the present global material socio-economic situation.

And that&#39;s been my position since the beginning.

[Xvall]

But it&#39;s even sadder that the left allowed itself to be associated (if not almost dominated) with these kind of ideas.

"The Left" is very broad, and encompasses everything from environmentalists to communists to feminists to anarchists to maoists to greens, whether you like it or not.

There is no "Left Party" and the left has no specific set of ideals other than obviously being not right-wing and left of center.

[pedro san pedro]

I dont know where the assumptions that enviromentalist policies cause poverty and halt development in the 3rd world; slow down technological advances; and want to revert our population to a hunter gatherer society come from, but I can tell that their authors not only know veyy little about the movement, but have also never actuallly met and talked to any environmentalists.

Firstly, poverty and development. The Kyoto Protocol, one of the flagships of the modern environmental movement, is a perfect example of how environmentalists understand the need to address poverty. Kyoto does not punish developing nations until they have had a chance to develop (incidently, one of the main reasons Bush gave for withdrawling).

As has been mentioned in this thread already, environmental problems have the potential to make poverty worse - climate change and desertification being excellent examples. These problems have a real tendency to affect the worlds poorest the hardest and must form any part of a solution toward poverty elimination.

Another good example of this tendency for environmental groups to help the 3rd world is the Basel Treaty, which, amoung other things, bans the export of toxic waste to the developing world, where corporations can &#39;treat&#39; the waste very cheaply and with very little concern for the health iof local workers. Or the Bhopal campaign, pressuring DOW chemical to clean up their Union Carbide site - which has killed many thousands and continues to do so - and compensate those effected.

Time and time again I a frustrated with environmentalists being dubbed ludites - which is reactionary in itself. Rather tha being anti-technology, environmentalists recognise that not all advances in technolgy will have positive results - as opposed to the blind faith that some board members seem to possess. Other times they can see that certian aspects of a technology are positve, whilst others are negative - genetic engineering for example. A vast majority of GE activists feel that the release of GE organisms into the enviroment is negative, but see no problem with the technology itself, and advocate the use of GE within the lab environment. So, lthe science is able to progress, but in a positive and safe manner.

Often environmentalists actually advocate thge use of a new technology - coal fired electrical plants are hardly at the cutting edge of science ;)

That environmentalists want to destroy our society to maintain nature is ridculiuos at best. Instead, the green movement recognises humanities need to manage resources in a sensible and sustainalbe way, so that society is able to continue to move forward and enjoy quality lifes in a clean and healthy world.



Black Dagger:


As far as the content of your actual statement, i&#39;ve never heard of the scenario that you&#39;re suggesting, hit me up with some sources please. Aboriginal people do not use &#39;back-burning&#39; exclusively for hunting (nor was this by any means the &#39;major&#39; or most commonly used method of hunting), nor did/do all groups use it, Australia is huge fucking continent, with a climate that is as diverse as any, from snowy mountains to scorching desert. Moreover, much of the native fauna REQUIRES fire in order to germinate, that is part of the process of &#39;back burning&#39;, deliberate bush-fires

See &#39;The Future Eaters&#39;, by an Australian academic (I forget who). This shows the changes the Aborginal People made to the ozzy landscape, including causing the extinction of Australian mega fauna, after their arrival and details their use of &#39;fire-stick&#39; farming.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2005, 05:43 PM

I see. Just because you&#39;ve been arguing that any attempt to protect the environment will lead to mass starvation, that doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re opposed to it.

Again, I feel it will lead to mass starvation and general suffering under capitalism and that there&#39;s no way to enact real environmental changes without harming millions under capitalism.
OK, so you oppose all environmental demands under capitalism, in other words, today and for some time to come. Excuse me for leaving that out, but I thought it was apparent. And people&#39;s politics have to be evaluated on what they do and say today, not what they might do at some indefinite future time, if they haven&#39;t changed their minds by then.

To get back on track, opposing a demand is different from suggesting it shouldn&#39;t be the highest priority.


Not all problems and struggles, merely the ones which cannot be solved under capitalism. Which is, granted, a great deal of them&#33;

Actually all of the major problems. Unemployment for example cannot be ended under capitalism...does that mean we don&#39;t make demands aimed at increasing employment, like a shorter workweek with no cut in pay? War and imperialism cannot be ended under capitalism, does that mean we don&#39;t oppose imperialist wars and demand the withdrawal of imperialist troops from (fill in the blank)?

Your criteria would convert the communist movement into utopian, doctrinaire, abstract propaganda only, along the lines of the Socialist Labor Party.

Often the point of raising a demand is precisely to show, in practice not by abstract preaching, that capitalism cannot resolve that problem. Also so that working people can gain experience in struggle by fighting for it. The point of fighting for reforms is not the reform, it&#39;s the fight.


I merely do not believe that this can be done nor should be attempted under the present global material socio-economic situation.


Some "merely"&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 3 2005, 07:43 AM
Time and time again I a frustrated with environmentalists being dubbed ludites - which is reactionary in itself. Rather tha being anti-technology, environmentalists recognise that not all advances in technolgy will have positive results - as opposed to the blind faith that some board members seem to possess. Other times they can see that certian aspects of a technology are positve, whilst others are negative - genetic engineering for example. A vast majority of GE activists feel that the release of GE organisms into the enviroment is negative, but see no problem with the technology itself, and advocate the use of GE within the lab environment. So, lthe science is able to progress, but in a positive and safe manner.
I think this is a good example of many environmentalists taking a luddite position, actually. Perhaps the comparison might be unfair to the Luddites, who were a stage in the development of the working-class movement after all, but not to those environmentalists who take this position.

Those who oppose all use of genetically engineered seeds, and sale of genetically engineered foods. That&#39;s a widespread position, even enforced by European governments, I&#39;d suggest out of protectionist economic motives.

There&#39;s no evidence indicating health or safety problems from genetic modification. It&#39;s reasonable to be cautious, require testing of each new product, etc; but the blanket opposition to GE seeds in agriculture (aka "release GE organisms into the enviroment") is not justified by any science.

There is one reason for opposing GE seeds which has a rational, factual basis: they intensify the control of capital, in the form of the seed companies, over working farmers. But opposing the technology, rather than capital&#39;s control over that technology, is precisely analogous to Luddites opposing the machines, rather than capital&#39;s control over the machines. Inevitable when the technology is new, perhaps, but the more advanced position is to distinguish between the effects of technology and the effects of capital&#39;s control of technology, and oppose the latter.

I might point out that Cuba has been conducting extensive research in genetically engineered crops and fish. (http://www.biotech-monitor.nl/4207.htm) They have been restrained in using them, however, not only by cautious testing, but by European protectionist measures. Cuba has refrained from growing tobacco from GE seeds, for example, because European consumers might not accept it....yeah, genetically engineered tobacco might not be safe&#33; Might even give ya lung cancer or something&#33;

The irrational nature of this scare campaign should be apparent.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2005, 04:43 AM

I will never belong to a movement that is unconcerned about the environment. I view the lives of animals just as important as the lives of humans.

I don&#39;t see why we are more important than other animals. If anything humans are worse because with our "advanced" thought we capture ourselves, and enslave one another, along with other animals.

You see&#33; That&#39;s exactly the kind of bullshit I&#39;m talking about&#33; :lol:
You didn&#39;t even post anything in response. You&#39;re an idiot. I disproved your bullshit&#33; :rolleyes:

[LSD]

You didn&#39;t even post anything in response.

Because your assertions are so evidently ludicrous and obviously false that they hardly need responding to&#33;


You&#39;re an idiot.

"I view the lives of animals just as important as the lives of humans."
"I don&#39;t see why we are more important than other animals. If anything humans are worse..."

:lol:&#33;

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 3 2005, 09:45 PM

You didn&#39;t even post anything in response.

Because your assertions are so evidently ludicrous and obviously false that they hardly need responding to&#33;


You&#39;re an idiot.

"I view the lives of animals just as important as the lives of humans."
"I don&#39;t see why we are more important than other animals. If anything humans are worse..."

:lol:&#33;
Once again, thank you for quoting me. Some things I&#39;ve said on this forum don&#39;t really apply to be anymore, as my ideological viewpoint has changed. Those have been said relatively recently and I still believe then (just thought I&#39;d warn you for future reference, so you don&#39;t assume I still hold everything dear for some of the things I did abotu a year ago). But like I said, you really have nothing to say to those except laughing, which only proves your idiocy. I mean :lol: ...you&#39;re disproved. Is that how you argue??

[bezdomni]

I couldn&#39;t be arsed to read the entire 4 pages of this thread.

Anyway, I propose limiting the meat industry to the point that a hamburger costs twenty times more than a burger made with soy products (more healthy and tastes just as good, I promise). Eventually, people will stop producing meat due to decreasing demand (since it would be so expensive) and more people will start producing crops. If we could magically turn all of our food industry livestock into crops overnight, we could end world hunger in a matter of days. We simply cannot provide the entire human population with food when the majority of our food is spent on animals that just end up on the plate of a bourgeoise.

Albert Einstein once said "Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

[workersunity]

are you all serious, you all sound like man over nature nuts, just read up what marx said on the issue


From Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

"Man lives from nature, i.e., nature is his body, and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die. To say that man&#39;s physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature"

[Vallegrande]

I propose limiting the meat industry to the point that a hamburger costs twenty times more than a burger made with soy products (more healthy and tastes just as good, I promise).

I have to say something about soy. Apparently it is not so good for us as we suspected. When soy is processed, it gives off MSG. Now I dont know if it is because the soy is older, or we can bypass that by using young soy. Soy can cause thyroid malfunction, its in the research. Maybe that can be prevented, but MSG is natural defense mechanism of soy, so I have to pass on that plant.

[LSD]

In fact studies have shown soy to have deleterious effects on both the thyroid gland and the pancreas.

Increasing soy consumption dramatically is simply not an option.

...but of course the massive soy lobby in the US has covered up much of this research, so you&#39;d never hear about it. <_<

[Vallegrande]

Yes thats true. There have been few whose words actually got out and alerted the public. Mary Enig and the Weston A Price foundation are showing many of these problems that people are facing with misinformation.

US food is bullshit compared to the diets of "underdeveloped" regions. But there is a choice, and Im not following the health industry&#39;s suggestion on how to eat. They are bullshit liers too. They tell us that saturated fat is bad... WRONG. They fucked the studies up by turning the saturated fat of coconut oil into trans fat before they tested it. Then they said it clogs the heart without saying they changed the fat&#39;s molecular structure. And coconuts are all over the equator&#33;&#33;&#33;

Mary Enig and Weston A Price foundation are doing some good research into these issues regarding fats, because it is really the fats and amino acids that make us healthier and happier, along with all the other stuff we need. This is opposite of what our health industry is saying, which is to eat less saturated fat as possible.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:12 PM
are you all serious, you all sound like man over nature nuts, just read up what marx said on the issue


From Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

"Man lives from nature, i.e., nature is his body, and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die. To say that man&#39;s physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature"
Did Marx actually say this? It looks like Marx has some spiritual beliefs eh Lysergic Acid Diethylamide?

[LSD]

Did Marx actually say this? It looks like Marx has some spiritual beliefs eh Lysergic Acid Diethylamide?

He also believe in dialectics ...so what?

We aren&#39;t making a "cult of Marx" here. Marx made some very important contribution, he also made some mistakes. Clearly, his ability to analyze the environmental ecosystem was impaired by the fact that he lived in the 19th century, and made a common fallacy of the time: he anthropomorphized nature.

Again ...so what?

[Vanguard1917]

Marx and Engels saw man as part of nature. But they saw man, differently from other "animals", as having the progressive and productive potential to master nature - to understand its laws so that they can be manipulated in the interests of human progress. We (humanity) are the SOVEREIGNS of nature.

[Redmau5]

Marx and Engels saw man as part of nature. But they saw man, differently from other "animals", as having the progressive and productive potential to master nature - to understand its laws so that they can be manipulated in the interests of human progress. We (humanity) are the SOVEREIGNS of nature.

Hmmmm that sounds remarkably like something i&#39;ve heard before. What could it be ? Oh yeah, it&#39;s the fundamentalist reading in the book of Genesis.

[Xvall]

I think it&#39;s pretty damn funny when human beings declare themselves the paragon of nature.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Doing away with the exploitive master-slave relationship means discarding both the idea that nature is servant to us as well the idea that we are servant to nature.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2005, 07:24 AM

Did Marx actually say this? It looks like Marx has some spiritual beliefs eh Lysergic Acid Diethylamide?

He also believe in dialectics ...so what?

We aren&#39;t making a "cult of Marx" here. Marx made some very important contribution, he also made some mistakes. Clearly, his ability to analyze the environmental ecosystem was impaired by the fact that he lived in the 19th century, and made a common fallacy of the time: he anthropomorphized nature.

Again ...so what?

Sorry you keep saying I&#39;m spiritual and using it as a refutation against me. That&#39;s WHAT&#33; :rolleyes:


Hmmmm that sounds remarkably like something i&#39;ve heard before. What could it be ? Oh yeah, it&#39;s the fundamentalist reading in the book of Genesis.
That and how he paraphrased the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," from the Bible. Seems like even he felt the Bible had some merit.

[Severian]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+May 8 2005, 12:34 AM--> (ComradeChris @ May 8 2005, 12:34 AM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 11:12 PM
are you all serious, you all sound like man over nature nuts, just read up what marx said on the issue


From Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

"Man lives from nature, i.e., nature is his body, and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die. To say that man&#39;s physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature"
Did Marx actually say this? It looks like Marx has some spiritual beliefs eh Lysergic Acid Diethylamide? [/b]
What, exactly, is spiritual about that?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 06:40 AM

Marx and Engels saw man as part of nature. But they saw man, differently from other "animals", as having the progressive and productive potential to master nature - to understand its laws so that they can be manipulated in the interests of human progress. We (humanity) are the SOVEREIGNS of nature.

Hmmmm that sounds remarkably like something i&#39;ve heard before. What could it be ? Oh yeah, it&#39;s the fundamentalist reading in the book of Genesis.
It does doesn&#39;t it.

If you examine all the scientific data, very carefully, you notice something. Humans are animals too&#33; Not only that, other animals use tools, communicate with each other (and humans), fight, empathise etc.

Humans are also dependent on their environment, while they are able to modify it (by working together, thought the capitalists would probably try and deny this ever happens), the more they modify it the more they can stuff it up.

While I&#39;m not advocating a return to no modern technology, I do think that humans do need to stop stuffing things up.

Reduce, Reuse, Recyle.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+May 10 2005, 01:33 AM--> (Apathy Maybe @ May 10 2005, 01:33 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 06:40 AM

Marx and Engels saw man as part of nature. But they saw man, differently from other "animals", as having the progressive and productive potential to master nature - to understand its laws so that they can be manipulated in the interests of human progress. We (humanity) are the SOVEREIGNS of nature.

Hmmmm that sounds remarkably like something i&#39;ve heard before. What could it be ? Oh yeah, it&#39;s the fundamentalist reading in the book of Genesis.
It does doesn&#39;t it. [/b]
Uh...right. Genesis emphasizes the importance of humanity understanding and using nature&#39;s laws. They musta left that part outta my copy.


If you examine all the scientific data, very carefully, you notice something. Humans are animals too&#33; Not only that, other animals use tools, communicate with each other (and humans), fight, empathise etc.

Scientific data collected by....humans. No other species of animals seeks to understand nature&#39;s laws. No other species has culture, the systematic transmission of learned knowledge to the next generation, making possible the accumulation of more and more knowledge. No other species has language, which makes culture possible.

Our tool-using and language abilities do have their seeds in those of other, ancestral species...but have grown far, far, beyond those of any other species.

Also, no other species fights for its rights. I&#39;ll support animal rights groups...when I see non-human animals supporting &#39;em.

[Vallegrande]

No other species has culture, the systematic transmission of learned knowledge to the next generation, making possible the accumulation of more and more knowledge.

How do you know that is true, because behavior (a part of culture) is passed down from the ancestors of any species.

[Severian]

Hmm...because a part of culture is passed down, therefore culture is passed down. Something wrong with that logic.

The genetic inheritance of instinctive behavior is obviously not culture.

A bear cub watching mama catch fish is not culture. Do bears get better and better at catching fish over generations? No. Humans do.

Culture is organized, as I said.

[KC]

The genetic inheritance of instinctive behavior is obviously not culture.

That isn&#39;t all that is handed down. You might notice that a dog raised by humans is a lot different than a dog in the wild. Why is this? Obviously not genetics. It is a learned behavior&#33;

The problem with "helping" animals (raising endangered species in animal shelters or whatever) is that they don&#39;t learn what they need to survive in the wild. Therefore it is obviously not only genetic information that animals carry.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Severian+May 9 2005, 09:10 PM--> (Severian @ May 9 2005, 09:10 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:34 AM

[email protected] 6 2005, 11:12 PM
are you all serious, you all sound like man over nature nuts, just read up what marx said on the issue


From Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

"Man lives from nature, i.e., nature is his body, and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die. To say that man&#39;s physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature"
Did Marx actually say this? It looks like Marx has some spiritual beliefs eh Lysergic Acid Diethylamide?
What, exactly, is spiritual about that? [/b]
Actually that was specifically directed to assertions made by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide towards me. I honestly don&#39;t see it as spiritualistic, being at one with nature and preserving it. But Lysergic Acid Diethylamide might. Take that one up with his logic.

[Severian]

Uh, you were the one who said it was spiritual, not LSD.

[Vallegrande]

Isn&#39;t everything a part of culture? ie Environment, species, behavior, tradition, etc. I call all these a part of culture. It doesnt have to be organised because nature itself is random, or is it not?

[Severian]

No. And all playing with definitions aside, the features I pointed out are unique to humanity. Yes, other species learn from their parents...or can learn more from humans. No, they do not organize to pass down accumulating knowledge from generation to generation.

Even earlier hominid species, and early Homo Sapiens, had little accumulation of culture: their tools remained the same over long periods. About 40,000 years ago important improvements in Homo Sapiens tools began...it was around this time that Homo Sapiens expanded into Europe and replaced Neanderthal populations there and in the Middle East.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:33 AM
Uh, you were the one who said it was spiritual, not LSD.
ARGH...nevermind, I&#39;m done trying to explain very simple things only to get insulted.

[Raisa]

Socialism and the environment should not be an exclusive issue at all since we dont have this consumpton and over production and "disreguard for profit instead
problem that we have under capitalism, where we cant even care about the environment. Capitalism is half assed like that.

I dont know how it is reactionary to care about the environment since we are a part of it. The people and their environmen go hand and hand. If you dont care about the environment then you dont care about the people.

[Vanguard1917]

Also, no other species fights for its rights. I&#39;ll support animal rights groups...when I see non-human animals supporting &#39;em.

Well said... How is it that we allowed ourselves to be preoccupied with the interests of other species... all this species-betrayal and species-compromise. All power to the human species&#33; :P :P :P

[apathy maybe]

Do you not care about the suffering of small children? Or those with disabilities? Or those who are born so as not to be able to see, speak or hear and seem unintelligent? What if there were two people, one a chimp who had been taught to speak with sign language and the other a retard who has not yet learnt to speak though is twenty years old. Which is more important? Which is more capable of expressing pain?

How do you expect the working class to rise up when they don&#39;t realise their own power? How do you expect animals to communicate if they do not know how?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 16 2005, 02:16 AM
How do you expect the working class to rise up when they don&#39;t realise their own power? How do you expect animals to communicate if they do not know how?
With the prior part of your post, I&#39;m a little confused as to wear you stand on animal rights. But this last part is what lead me astray possibly.

Are you claiming animals have no way of communicating? Almost every animal species has a way of communicating among themselves. Because we don&#39;t understand that doesn&#39;t mean it doesn&#39;t exist. If anything, they are probably more intelligent because some animals can be trained to understand us, when it isn&#39;t possible the other way around (except maybe in very rare cases).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also, no other species fights for its rights. I&#39;ll support animal rights groups...when I see non-human animals supporting &#39;em.

This is a very good point - Unless a species fights for the right to be treated as an equal to humans, that species should be treated as a resource. Resources need management. Allowing animals to go extinct is not cruelty, it&#39;s recklessness.

Animals are ours to eat, make clothes out of, test medicines on, and make tame for companionship. Later on we could genetically engineer them to be as smart as humans, but that&#39;s another discussion.

Managing the environment for maximum human comfort is fine, but needlessly enduring hardships in the name of &#39;environmental preservation&#39; is stupid.

[Vallegrande]

Animals are ours to eat, make clothes out of, test medicines on, and make tame for companionship. Later on we could genetically engineer them to be as smart as humans, but that&#39;s another discussion.

Thats more of a Christian approach as I know of it. That nature is intended for us to control. I just dont agree with that.

[apathy maybe]

I don&#39;t believe in vegetarianism, but I do believe that animals have rights, and can feel pain. Because they can feel pain they should not be treated cruelly. I also think that some animals (humans included) are intelligent and thus have extra intrinsic rights.



Originally posted by ComradeChris

Are you claiming animals have no way of communicating? Almost every animal species has a way of communicating among themselves. Because we don&#39;t understand that doesn&#39;t mean it doesn&#39;t exist. If anything, they are probably more intelligent because some animals can be trained to understand us, when it isn&#39;t possible the other way around (except maybe in very rare cases).
I meant animals communicating with humans. They don&#39;t stand up for their rights because they can&#39;t, they don&#39;t understand most of human speach and we don&#39;t understand them. Inteligent animals can be trained to communicate using sign language (chimpanzees) and other methods (animals with out hands).


NoXion that is typical anthropocentricist idea. What makes humans so special that they have the right to do anything they want to any other species or event the Earth?

Humans are a part of nature. The only trouble is they just happen to be a plague species which is fucking things up for everything else as well as humans.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thats more of a Christian approach as I know of it. That nature is intended for us to control. I just dont agree with that.


NoXion that is typical anthropocentricist idea. What makes humans so special that they have the right to do anything they want to any other species or event the Earth?

Nature is not intended for our control, (It&#39;s not intended for anything&#33;) but there&#39;s nothing from stopping us.
What you don&#39;t realise is that if we don&#39;t take charge of our situation in the universe, nature will steamroller us because it&#39;s blind and incapable of caring.
Controlling nature is what humans have been trying to do ever since they rose above their instincts and become abstract thinkers capable of thinking rational thoughts (Sometimes).
It&#39;s just that we&#39;ve never so far been able to totally control nature perfectly (That is to say, perfectly according to our standards, as nature has none). But someday we will, and we need to keep aiming for that goal in the interest of our own survival (And because we like to fiddle with things).


Humans are a part of nature. The only trouble is they just happen to be a plague species which is fucking things up for everything else as well as humans.

Yes humans are a part of nature and that is why it is so important that we control as much of it as possble for our own ends.
Humans as a &#39;Plague species&#39;? For goodness&#39; sake, you sound like one of those damn primitivists&#33; :angry:

[Vallegrande]

In other words are you saying we can live a sustainable life with nature, or just that we have to control it? In my view, nature does not rely on order, but somehow things learn to co-exist with each other, because they can&#39;t completely control each other. There is order, however it is random order. In nature, there are countless species being discovered, mainly fungus and insect species.

Which raises an important point. Insects and fungus are pretty nutritional (if they are the right ones) and the insects make up one of the largest portions of the population on earth. It seems that those will be the last resort when there is not much else left.

[codyvo]

Why is their even a debate, without the enviroment their would be no people, we literally can&#39;t live if we don&#39;t preserve the enviroment, it is the essence of our life. This doesn&#39;t mean I don&#39;t care about the people I actually care for them by caring for the enviroment.

[apathy maybe]

Have a look at graphs of human population growth. Looks like a Plague to me. No I am not a primitivist, I believe that they have certain flaws in some of their crucial arguements. But they do have a lot of good stuff to say.

Why should we control nature for our own species? What makes humans so fucking special anyway? Would you say the samething if you were a rabbit say? (Look what they did to Australia, not that they are in any danger of dying out.)

[Severian]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 19 2005, 02:40 AM
Have a look at graphs of human population growth. Looks like a Plague to me.
Which says more about you and your view of humanity than about population growth. It is your subjective view that rapid growth is bad in this case, probably because you already don&#39;t like people.

Human population growth is, in fact, levelling off. Due to industrialization, urbanization, education, advances in women&#39;s rights. In the most industrialized countries, birthrates are now below deathrates. As Third World countries become more industrialized, esp if social conditions improve, their population growth tends to level off as well.


No I am not a primitivist, I believe that they have certain flaws in some of their crucial arguements. But they do have a lot of good stuff to say.

Such as?


What makes humans so fucking special anyway? Would you say the samething if you were a rabbit say?

I&#39;ve never known a rabbit to have any opinion on such matters. Which helps answer your question about how humanity is "special". Fuller explanation already given earlier in thread.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have a look at graphs of human population growth. Looks like a Plague to me. No I am not a primitivist, I believe that they have certain flaws in some of their crucial arguements. But they do have a lot of good stuff to say.

Such as what? and how is human population growth indication of disease? Disease populations (Or at least cases) are cyclical. Human population has been in linear growth since it&#39;s existance. That&#39;s indicative of a very successful species, considering we have grown from a few hundred million migrating out of Africa to a worldwide species numbering in the billions. Objectively speaking, humans are a very successful species, being the only ones known to reach space.


Why should we control nature for our own species? What makes humans so fucking special anyway? Would you say the samething if you were a rabbit say? (Look what they did to Australia, not that they are in any danger of dying out.)

A rabbit has no opinion on the matter. They operate by instinct alone.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 03:22 AM
Disease populations (Or at least cases) are cyclical. Human population has been in linear growth since it&#39;s existance.
That&#39;s right, actually. Growth of bacterial cultures also typically levels off or crashes at some point when some limiting resource is exhausted.

Human population growth shows a very different pattern because we change our environment. And now, when population growth is beginning to level off, it&#39;s not because we&#39;re running out of nutrients like a bacterial culture; it&#39;s the better-fed countries where population growth has slowed the most.

It&#39;s because of social and cultural changes. Which are a unique feature of humanity.

[Vallegrande]

Objectively speaking, humans are a very successful species, being the only ones known to reach space.

Mushroom spores can travel in space longer than we can imagine.

[ComradeChris]

Are humans not part of nature? Isn&#39;t anything that destroys nature ultimately going to destroy ourselves? And I agree with a few people&#39;s comments, why are we more important than animals? Is it because they are unable to defend themselves? If that is the case we shuoldn&#39;t care for newborn babies, since they only have the ability of animal instincts (grabbing, sucking, etc. until taught otherwise). Or does our genetic make-up make us more important even though the intellect is comparable?

[The Apathetic Atheist]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 20 2005, 05:11 AM
The environment matters, but people matter more.

Current environmental policy is abysmal, but that&#39;s mostly due to capitalism. Capitalism artificially overstimulates demand and unnescessarily pushes production to increase "profits". But any economic system has to account for the fact that 6 billion people aren&#39;t going to feed themselves. Too much of the environmental movement is made up of rich white Euro-Americans who have no idea what real starvation is like. Sure, we all like trees and cude fuzzy animals, but the third wold isn&#39;t going to feed itself with soy.

If it&#39;s a choice between saving the rain forrest and ending world hunger, I know where my vote is.

Timbbbbbbberrrrrrr&#33;
The rain forest accounts for a large percent of the world&#39;s oxygen. Destroying it would mean certain doom for at least some of humanity.

[Vallegrande]

The only reason why rainforests are being depleted are for timber, and for people to put their cows on.

Theres more food in the rainforest than we can imagine.

[workersunity]

well i consider environmental sustainability to only be able to come about with socialism, so in my case its not reactionary, i say check out some shit by John Bellamy Foster

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 05:42 PM
If that is the case we shuoldn&#39;t care for newborn babies, since they only have the ability of animal instincts (grabbing, sucking, etc. until taught otherwise).
Don&#39;t be deliberately obtuse. The question was, why is our species different from others. Answer: Our species has culture, complex society, the ability to fight for our rights.

It wasn&#39;t a question or answer about every member of our species. Babies, etc., are part of our species, part of our society, and as a socialist I think society has to look out for everyone.

This is called human solidarity.

How did a discussion on the environment become a discussion on animal rights anyway? The two don&#39;t go together. They are sometimes directly opposed.

For example, PETA launched a campaign against the U.S. Forest Service killing feral pigs on some Pacific island. The pigs were wiping out endangered species and destroying the tropical forest on that island. But they&#39;re just as good as people&#33; You can&#39;t kill them&#33;

Or anti-fur people "liberating" mink from fur farms in Britain, unleashing an overpopulation of crazed weasel-like predators on the countryside and nearly wiping out water voles.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Severian+May 24 2005, 12:30 AM--> (Severian &#064; May 24 2005, 12:30 AM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 05:42 PM
If that is the case we shuoldn&#39;t care for newborn babies, since they only have the ability of animal instincts (grabbing, sucking, etc. until taught otherwise).
Don&#39;t be deliberately obtuse. The question was, why is our species different from others. Answer: Our species has culture, complex society, the ability to fight for our rights.

It wasn&#39;t a question or answer about every member of our species. Babies, etc., are part of our species, part of our society, and as a socialist I think society has to look out for everyone.

This is called human solidarity.

How did a discussion on the environment become a discussion on animal rights anyway? The two don&#39;t go together. They are sometimes directly opposed.

For example, PETA launched a campaign against the U.S. Forest Service killing feral pigs on some Pacific island. The pigs were wiping out endangered species and destroying the tropical forest on that island. But they&#39;re just as good as people&#33; You can&#39;t kill them&#33;

Or anti-fur people "liberating" mink from fur farms in Britain, unleashing an overpopulation of crazed weasel-like predators on the countryside and nearly wiping out water voles.[/b]
Firstly, there was no question asked other than &#39;is environmentalism reactionary&#39;. So I don&#39;t know why you brought up the other question.

Secondly, what is culture? Please define that for me. I have my definition of culture, I would like to know yours.

Thirdly, other animals obviously don&#39;t like captivity (especially when born in the wild). They do try to escape, and just because they don&#39;t speak english (because you seem very anthropocentric, if not anglocentric; but that&#39;s just from what I&#39;ve seen) doesn&#39;t mean they do not protest or try to fight for their freedom.

Fourthly, what makes someone human?

Fifthly, animals are part of the environment (as many people here seem to feel) that is why they&#39;re included in this discussion.

Sixthly, could you tell me more about the case of these pigs destroying the vegetation? From what it sounds like it was HUMAN interference (PEOPLE migrating the pig) that seems to have been the problem.

Seventhly, I feel humans are overpopulated. Does that mean I can make a coat of baby-skin?

And finally, I&#39;m not being obtuse (if anything you were by asking and answering completely irrelevant questions). I&#39;m just trying to comprehend the way uncaring people think.

[Vallegrande]

Secondly, what is culture?

I know you aren&#39;t asking me, but culture has to be everything that we are and come from, it is the environment, species, everything. I dont believe culture can be specified to a few things.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:54 PM

Secondly, what is culture?

I know you aren&#39;t asking me, but culture has to be everything that we are and come from, it is the environment, species, everything. I dont believe culture can be specified to a few things.
To me, culture can be also seen as part of the mating ritual. Which is why I wanted to know his opinion. Some birds&#39; mating rituals consist of building large nests...well some people consider large houses (palaces, complexes, etc) to have cultural value. The idea of music is a way of communicating for us, as well as a method of seduction. The cultural aspect of money also buys people love. That is why I&#39;d like clarification.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:29 PM
Firstly, there was no question asked other than &#39;is environmentalism reactionary&#39;. So I don&#39;t know why you brought up the other question.

Secondly, what is culture? Please define that for me. I have my definition of culture, I would like to know yours.
Please read the thread, I don&#39;t care to keep repeating myself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:07 PM

Objectively speaking, humans are a very successful species, being the only ones known to reach space.

Mushroom spores can travel in space longer than we can imagine.
Do they get there with or without human assistance? How many have reached the Moon?

[pedro san pedro]

Sixthly, could you tell me more about the case of these pigs destroying the vegetation? From what it sounds like it was HUMAN interference (PEOPLE migrating the pig) that seems to have been the problem.

yes, and it was the environmentalists trying to then fix this problem. animal rights activists piss me off in this type of situtation. demanding that the pests lives be spared - and at the same time condenming whatever ecosystem the pests are in. it tends to be these types of people that are fans of the &#39;we are animals too, we are part of the environment&#39; arguements, but they&#39;ll come down on you like a tonne of bricks should you try to change the natural world for the better. what we need to do is realise that our resources do not need to be shut off, but managed in a sensible and sustainable manner. even if only for selfish reasons

[pedro san pedro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:11 PM

Nature is not intended for our control, (It&#39;s not intended for anything&#33;) but there&#39;s nothing from stopping us.
What you don&#39;t realise is that if we don&#39;t take charge of our situation in the universe, nature will steamroller us because it&#39;s blind and incapable of caring.
Controlling nature is what humans have been trying to do ever since they rose above their instincts and become abstract thinkers capable of thinking rational thoughts (Sometimes).
It&#39;s just that we&#39;ve never so far been able to totally control nature perfectly (That is to say, perfectly according to our standards, as nature has none). But someday we will, and we need to keep aiming for that goal in the interest of our own survival (And because we like to fiddle with things).

that almost sounds like an argument for evironmentalism, noxion ;) apart from the word control of course. we can&#39;t even comprehend the earths natural systems - how do you plan to control them?

throwing them out of whack and destroying our very life support systems seems like an open invitation for nature to &#39;steamroller us&#39;. we need to realise that we need nature to survive and that we have the very real potential to damage nature to the point where things will go badly wrong.

extinction? only a worse case senerio. loss of humn life? definately - its already happening (110,000 human deaths attriuted to global warming by the WHO in 2004 for example). human selfishness and environmentislm are completely compatible - our quality of life is gonna take a plunge if we keep on the way we are.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

that almost sounds like an argument for evironmentalism, noxion wink.gif apart from the word control of course. we can&#39;t even comprehend the earths natural systems - how do you plan to control them?

By manipulating our environment to suit our needs, of course. At present our knowledge of environmental systems is basic, but there&#39;s nothing to stop us advancing our knowledge and deepening our understanding of them.


throwing them out of whack and destroying our very life support systems seems like an open invitation for nature to &#39;steamroller us&#39;. we need to realise that we need nature to survive and that we have the very real potential to damage nature to the point where things will go badly wrong.

Thus my point about management of resources - I approach environmentalism from a materialist/utilitarian viewpoint, rather than the simplistic moral/emotional viewpoint which some environmentalists approach from.


extinction? only a worse case senerio. loss of humn life? definately - its already happening (110,000 human deaths attriuted to global warming by the WHO in 2004 for example). human selfishness and environmentislm are completely compatible - our quality of life is gonna take a plunge if we keep on the way we are.

Indeed. If you look at it objectively, air pollution kills more than nuclear power ever has. This is why I object to the &#39;moral&#39; environmentalists because usually their sources of information are from organisations like Greenpeace, who aren&#39;t objective about things like this.

Oh, and to the others: Culture is music, stories, art, politics, religion etc. Simply being able to build a nest is not culture.
Humans are also seperate from other animals because it has extelligience; we have recorded vast amounts of information on many media that we can&#39;t possibly hold in our heads.

[pedro san pedro]

the death mainly came from increases in tropical diseases, caused by rising temperatures.

the nuclear power &#39;saving&#39; us from climate change is one for a seperate thread - its too big an issue :), but to briefly summerise, most anti-nuke acxtivists argue that so long as we have nuclear power there is the potential for nuclear weapons etc etc etc. its a topic that environmentalists tend to argue amongst themselves very passionately.

a to be objective - noone who is an activist ever is - be they environmental acitivsts or wearing another cloak. i do think you will find though that greenpeace backs up there arguements with a lot of science - and even has 2 labs of their own. i dont disagree that there are a lot of &#39;environmentally concious&#39; people who know very little about the issues they are talking about, but the &#39;main stream&#39; environmental organisations have to be very careful with their public statements - because they know that the are going to be gone through with a very fine toothed comb. can you actually pick out something that greenpeace has gotten wrong?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i dont disagree that there are a lot of &#39;environmentally concious&#39; people who know very little about the issues they are talking about, but the &#39;main stream&#39; environmental organisations have to be very careful with their public statements - because they know that the are going to be gone through with a very fine toothed comb. can you actually pick out something that greenpeace has gotten wrong?

Their selective reporting is a matter of record.

[pedro san pedro]

come on noxion - give us something specific. where has the science been wrong?

[pedro san pedro]

thats enough internet for me for tonight - but i would also be interested in reading anythin that doesnt have a bias in its reporting. bias is always gonna be there - the important thing is if your&#39;ve got your facts straight

[Vallegrande]

Objectively speaking, humans are a very successful species, being the only ones known to reach space.



QUOTE (Vallegrande @ May 19 2005, 05:07 PM)
Mushroom spores can travel in space longer than we can imagine.


QUOTE Noxion
Do they get there with or without human assistance? How many have reached the Moon?

They need no human assistance, period. Check out the new studies on the mushroom spores. They can travel indefinitely in space.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Severian+May 25 2005, 05:28 AM--> (Severian @ May 25 2005, 05:28 AM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 11:29 PM
Firstly, there was no question asked other than &#39;is environmentalism reactionary&#39;. So I don&#39;t know why you brought up the other question.

Secondly, what is culture? Please define that for me. I have my definition of culture, I would like to know yours.
Please read the thread, I don&#39;t care to keep repeating myself. [/b]
Yeah, I&#39;ve been repeating myself over and over many times in these environmentalism threads. But you&#39;re not going to reply to any of my comments?


yes, and it was the environmentalists trying to then fix this problem. animal rights activists piss me off in this type of situtation. demanding that the pests lives be spared - and at the same time condenming whatever ecosystem the pests are in.

Seeing everyone else here seems to be arguing from an anthropocentric point of view, I&#39;ll make my analogy as such. You cannot blame these innocent pigs for their forced migration. I&#39;m sure they were content where they were (and I mean LONG before human intervention and domestication). It&#39;s like when they were bringing Africans over to the New World. Should they have started killing them if the African slaves began outnumbering Europeans and the Europeans feared their extinction? Of course this example is based on humans defining nationality and race, while the pig is of a different species. But the idea is still the same. Both the Africans and the pigs were FORCE MIGRATED against their will, and then their actions (that really weren&#39;t their actions) are used to condemn them. If humans just stayed out altogether of the environment (by not captivating animals; including themselves) it would probably do much better.

[pedro san pedro]

but havent you been arguing that we are part of the environment? and now you want us to stay out of it?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 25 2005, 11:28 PM
but havent you been arguing that we are part of the environment? and now you want us to stay out of it?
I&#39;m saying we should have stayed out of it (enslaving other animals; including ourselves, for selfish purposes) from the beginning. And when we further intervene we often screw things up further.

[pedro san pedro]

whats done cant be undone, so saying we should have stayde outta the environment in the past is kinda irrelevant.

theres been plenty of cases of pest control bringing nature back into check - and plenty of cases where people have done nothing and introduced pests have reeked havoc upon ecosystems.

[pedro san pedro]

It&#39;s like when they were bringing Africans over to the New World. Should they have started killing them if the African slaves began outnumbering Europeans and the Europeans feared their extinction? Of course this example is based on humans defining nationality and race, while the pig is of a different species. But the idea is still the same. Both the Africans and the pigs were FORCE MIGRATED against their will, and then their actions (that really weren&#39;t their actions) are used to condemn them. If humans just stayed out altogether of the environment (by not captivating animals; including themselves) it would probably do much better

perhaps a better anaolgy would be if someone had dropped a whole lot of capitalists on a peaceful island, and they enslaved the population and started destroying the environment. should we do anything to stop them or just say we made a mistake in the past and should wash our hands of the matter?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 26 2005, 12:41 AM

It&#39;s like when they were bringing Africans over to the New World. Should they have started killing them if the African slaves began outnumbering Europeans and the Europeans feared their extinction? Of course this example is based on humans defining nationality and race, while the pig is of a different species. But the idea is still the same. Both the Africans and the pigs were FORCE MIGRATED against their will, and then their actions (that really weren&#39;t their actions) are used to condemn them. If humans just stayed out altogether of the environment (by not captivating animals; including themselves) it would probably do much better

perhaps a better anaolgy would be if someone had dropped a whole lot of capitalists on a peaceful island, and they enslaved the population and started destroying the environment. should we do anything to stop them or just say we made a mistake in the past and should wash our hands of the matter?
Who put them there? Most capitalists go wherever they can exploit raw resources (which to them includes living things).


whats done cant be undone, so saying we should have stayde outta the environment in the past is kinda irrelevant.

And what&#39;s still being done. Not as much, but animals are still being traded across closed environments, only to destroy the new ecosystem.


theres been plenty of cases of pest control bringing nature back into check - and plenty of cases where people have done nothing and introduced pests have reeked havoc upon ecosystems.

I guess? But what&#39;s &#39;check&#39;? As you said the damage done to humans has already been done. Direct human intervention has caused the extinction of numerous species, and eliminated many species in certain areas. Marvelous race we are.

[socialistfuture]

the title of this thread is one of the most idiotic things i have ever heard, i&#39;d say a swift exectution is required. anway..
why must it be anti humanist to care for our home - the earth? just because patriarchy says we must dominate our landscape to prove our worth as a species. wow we can polute and destroy, manipulate our surroundings and fellow co-inhabitants how superior humanity must be to all other things.

does the concept of us being a part of the planet, as in we need the earth to survive so we should care for it so it takes care of us not make sense.

whats is the difference between say the waste of the solviet union and the peoples republic of china and the waste of the usa and britian? whats the difference between a radical person dropping a piece of rubbish on the ground and a conservative doing it?

if its counter revolutionary to protect the surrounding u (we) depend on i&#39;d say socialism truley is dead then. cause the world social forum and other groupings of radial people will not halt and change tactics because some twat things enviromentalism is anti human.

besides u cannot always put things down to left wing/ right wing those who are concerned for the planet and those who live off it are of mixed beliefs. if someone tries to destroy my home i will destroy them. for otherwise they will destroy us both.

[Vanguard1917]

why must it be anti humanist to care for our home - the earth? just because patriarchy says we must dominate our landscape to prove our worth as a species. wow we can polute and destroy, manipulate our surroundings and fellow co-inhabitants how superior humanity must be to all other things.

Socialistfuture, have you even read the debate in this thread? Read the arguments that I, Lysergic and Noxion (to name but three) have put forth and then read the replies. Of course this takes time and effort on your behalf; you also need to use the brain that Mother Nature gave you. Calling me a "twat" is nice, but it&#39;s cheap and lazy.

By the way, the World Social Forum is dominated by petty-bourgeois ideologues who seem to be able to provide no real solutions to the miserable problems facing the many, many millions of HUMAN BEINGS of this world. So the fact that you use the WSF to refute anti-environmentalism also tells us a great deal about where you stand. These people certainly aren&#39;t radicals; they&#39;re as radical as the liberals that speak at conferences organised by imperialist organisations such as the United Nations.

Trotsky said that reactionary times let ignorance bare its teeth. The environmentalist logic is so primitive, ignorant and reactionary that it deserves to be labelled as right-wing.

[ComradeChris]

Or read mine, and a select few others socialistfuture. From people who actually care about the environment. And if a few people want to call it reactionary (or even right-winged; although I don&#39;t see how compassion is right-winged :rolleyes: ), we&#39;ll let them be wrong.

[LuZhiming]

I&#39;m not going to read this whole topic, so forgive me if I am doing nothing but reiterating points already made. I&#39;m just going to state my opinions on various things I have seen in this topic(Even though this topic is a few days old):


Environmentalism is anti-humanist. Humanism is nothing but a fanatical religion basing itself on the principle that &#39;human life is sacred(others are not).&#39; Followers of humanism will stop at nothing to subjugate the world for the "betterment" of man, which in the long run will hurt man and the rest of the biosphere. They figure the environment is man&#39;s to own and exploit, and is not important for other purposes. Does man control the tidal waves and hurricanes which flatten our "great" creations at unexpected times? It is foolhardy to say the Earth is ours, we cannot control nature. We cannot even understand it to a great deal. It&#39;s interesting how this reasoning of, "we control the Earth" relates to Imperialistic views on how certain men want to control other men. It&#39;s the same thing. It is a mockery.

Two key questions come up: Should we as humans value ourselves more than other species? Is human life, in itself(all) sacred? The first question is a simple one to answer, namely, of course we should value ourselves above other species, as all species do, otherwise we would not survive. The answer to the second question is no. Human life is not sacred. No whole species is sacred. It doesn&#39;t work like that. The point in this all is that there are limits to these things. 1.Yes, humans should value themselves above other species, and should exploit the earth in ways that improve human life, but humans should have sizable limits on these activities and cannot allow events to happen that cause drastic damage(endangerment or extinction of any species, massive pollution, overpopulation, etc. not to speak of actions that could potentially destroy human and some other life completely) to the Earth. 2.Yes, humans should respect the environment, but should go to unhealthy and unnatural extremes like the ones animal-rights fanatics go to. Animals feed off other animals. We need the protein in meat(plant protein is different, it doesn&#39;t help much) for our health. But, if the species is endangered in any way, it should be left alone by us, helped(preserved) even if neccessary. 3. Yes, the &#39;health&#39; of the Earth is more important then our personal human ideologies, as the Earth is our home and our life in the most complete sense. This is not a matter of valuing trees and animals above humans, but about valuing the whole above everything else.

No more big cities. We have too much of those already. A point to make is that if we uses our resources correctly, and build our societies conveniently, we don&#39;t neccessarily have to have as many big cities as we have to live productively. Besides this, a lot of the problem in this lies in overpopulation(We wouldn&#39;t have so many poor people if there weren&#39;t so many of us). The human population is unnacceptably high. This causes all sorts of problems as resources for humans(if we want to stay remotely civilized) AND other species(who demand much less) are far too low. This needs to be changed, we can&#39;t have as many people as we have now, and I can&#39;t imagine what it will be like with the population increasing billions more. This situation becomes worse if underdeveloped countries become wealthier, as the last thing the world needs is billions more Capitalist pigs who release polluting substances into the air constantly and buy consumer goods all day long and waste them, and throw away parts of them to be dumped somewhere. Perhaps "tree worshipping" is irrational, but valuing nature and the Earth is one of the most rational things you can ever do.

Denying that mankind is the source of a lot of the Earth&#39;s current problems is lunacy. How can such an obviously true assertion be challenged? What have human beings done to help other species on Earth? Maybe we have helped the population of cats and dogs, but other than that I can&#39;t think of much, and that does not compare with the harm we have done. Human developement does not help the Earth, it harms it. That is why we must limit it, we don&#39;t stop it completely, because we want our species to be better. But we cannot destroy the planet and all life around us in the process. We will just destroy ourselves doing that in the long run anyway.

[Vanguard1917]

LuZhiming, you have provided us with some amazingly reactionary ideas, and I really do not know how someone with such ideas can consider him or herself as someone on the radical left (which is where I assume you see yourself as standing). But I will reply:


we cannot control nature. We cannot even understand it to a great deal.

Man has began to learn the skill of controlling nature - but he is yet to completely master it, which is the ultimate goal of humankind. Without this, humanity will continue to be subjected to the destructive forces that nature, if not controlled, inevitably brings. Here we are not only talking of things like earthquakes or tsunamis, but more general things such as human hunger and starvation.


It&#39;s interesting how this reasoning of, "we control the Earth" relates to Imperialistic views on how certain men want to control other men. It&#39;s the same thing.

Controlling nature and controlling other men is not the same. Are you even thinking about what you are saying? Or are you just trying to me emotive?


Yes, humans should value themselves above other species, and should exploit the earth in ways that improve human life, but humans should have sizable limits on these activities and cannot allow events to happen that cause drastic damage(endangerment or extinction of any species, massive pollution, overpopulation, etc. not to speak of actions that could potentially destroy human and some other life completely) to the Earth.

You recognise that humans need to &#39;exploit&#39; the earth, but then you name overpopulation as a problem. Surely the best way to control the earth in the interests of humanity is to increase human presence on earth?


No more big cities. We have too much of those already.

NO&#33; We do not have enough&#33; Ask the impoverished people of the &#39;third world&#39;, who live in slums and shanty towns, whether they would prefer to live in a big city, with all its advantages. I&#39;m sure we know what they would choose. Who are you to tell them otherwise?


Besides this, a lot of the problem in this lies in overpopulation(We wouldn&#39;t have so many poor people if there weren&#39;t so many of us). The human population is unnacceptably high. This causes all sorts of problems as resources for humans(if we want to stay remotely civilized) AND other species(who demand much less) are far too low. This needs to be changed, we can&#39;t have as many people as we have now, and I can&#39;t imagine what it will be like with the population increasing billions more.

Human beings are the solution to the world&#39;s problems. This was discussed by myself and others in the posts above in this thread. I would definately urge you to read them.


This situation becomes worse if underdeveloped countries become wealthier, as the last thing the world needs is billions more Capitalist pigs who release polluting substances into the air constantly and buy consumer goods all day long and waste them, and throw away parts of them to be dumped somewhere.

I&#39;m sorry but I would prefer more capitalist pigs in the underdeveloped world then environmentalists. The problem with capitalism is that it does not bring enough investment in the world, not that it brings too much. Capitalism is having a parasitic impact precisely because it is no longer able to increase the productive forces. Read Marx, read Engels, read Lenin on imperialism.


What have human beings done to help other species on Earth? Maybe we have helped the population of cats and dogs, but other than that I can&#39;t think of much, and that does not compare with the harm we have done.

Other species do no have a value in and of themselves. They are only valuable in their value to us.


Human developement does not help the Earth, it harms it.

Disgusting reactionary nonsense&#33; This is the basic logic of environmentalism, and that is why it is reactionary. Massively increased development is the answer to the problems that are facing humanity - it is not the problem&#33; It is only the petit-bourgeois that can support such views.

LuZhiming, your views are very reactionary. Enlighten yourself and fix up your ideas.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+Jun 4 2005, 05:07 PM--> (Vanguard1917 &#064; Jun 4 2005, 05:07 PM)LuZhiming, you have provided us with some amazingly reactionary ideas, and I really do not know how someone with such ideas can consider him or herself as someone on the radical left (which is where I assume you see yourself as standing). But I will reply: [/b]

Thank you. I won&#39;t lie to you, I don&#39;t see how anyone with such pscychotic views(and I don&#39;t mean this as an insult, I just thinks these kinds of goals truly are psychotic) can consider themselves a "follower" of leftist ideologies. And you clearly do not know what the word reactionary is, your firm belief in the power and goodness of man is the truly reactionary, ultraconservative belief. My belief is one many men have had for centuries, based on man&#39;s own experiences with nature.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:07 PM
Man has began to learn the skill of controlling nature - but he is yet to completely master it, which is the ultimate goal of humankind. Without this, humanity will continue to be subjected to the destructive forces that nature, if not controlled, inevitably brings. Here we are not only talking of things like earthquakes or tsunamis, but more general things such as human hunger and starvation.

Here&#39;s an ethical question: Why should man control nature? Is that actually healthy to our state? Humans are subject to nature, and should be. This assumption that man "has no boundaries" is one of the most dogmatic and fanatically ambitious ideas one could ever think of. I would you ask to explain where you get the idea that mastering nature is the ultimate goal of mankind.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:07 PM
Controlling nature and controlling other men is not the same. Are you even thinking about what you are saying? Or are you just trying to me emotive?

Yes, I am thinking of these matters. The difference is that I do not have implanted in my head this dogma that "man must dominate, man must do all it can." That is a very selfish view on life.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:07 PM
You recognise that humans need to &#39;exploit&#39; the earth, but then you name overpopulation as a problem. Surely the best way to control the earth in the interests of humanity is to increase human presence on earth?

No, the less humans there are, the better it is for the ones who live(Unless it gets too low where reproduction and such becomes a problem, of course). And as I said, though humans should prioritize ourselves more than others, we must place limits on our activities so we don&#39;t so drastically damage the Earth. It is our responsibility because we are the only species with the power to do such things.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:07 PM
NO&#33; We do not have enough&#33; Ask the impoverished people of the &#39;third world&#39;, who live in slums and shanty towns, whether they would prefer to live in a big city, with all its advantages. I&#39;m sure we know what they would choose. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

This nothing but propaganda. I could just as easily say: "Who are you to tell the wolf, whose species is extinct that he has a right not to have his children crushed by your murderous machines(vehicles)." Of course it sounds silly, and the only reason for saying such things is to be emotive(funny you should accuse me) and distract discussion away from its intention. This overpopulation will end up harming humans anyway, it is a menace to the Earth and it depletes its resources. You are merely ignoring these problems and using "we must save the poor" as an excuse to do so. It doesn&#39;t matter how many emotive statements you make, only solutions can solve something. Again, who are you to tell the wolf his children are not important?(:rolleyes:)


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:07 PM
Human beings are the solution to the world&#39;s problems. This was discussed by myself and others in the posts above in this thread. I would definately urge you to read them.

Actually, I couldn&#39;t find one line where any of you have discussed this belief, I have only seen people claiming it.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:07 PM
I&#39;m sorry but I would prefer more capitalist pigs in the underdeveloped world then environmentalists. The problem with capitalism is that it does not bring enough investment in the world, not that it brings too much. Capitalism is having a parasitic impact precisely because it is no longer able to increase the productive forces. Read Marx, read Engels, read Lenin on imperialism.

You should Marx in more depth, and should read the views of key Enlightenment figures before. The problem with Capitalism is not that it does not produce enough, but that it gives the fruits of that which it produces disproportionately, that it does not always produce the things we need(but things we don&#39;t need), and that the way it goes about producing. To expand on the third one by taking words from Wilhelm von Humboldt, Capitalism is a problem because it makes man&#39;s life one of slavery, where man is made an instrument of states which ignore and overlook man&#39;s individual purposes, a lifestyle that is anti-human, because man is naturally a free and self-perfecting being. To Marx and others, man&#39;s labor is supposed to be done by his own creativity and will, and when these situations exist a man&#39;s labor thus becomes his art, while other kinds of labor(such as wage labor), merely make man an instrument, causing his work to lose all essential meaning and become a torment.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:07 PM
Other species do no have a value in and of themselves. They are only valuable in their value to us.

Again, this is just a fanatical and selfish "the world revolves around me/us" point of view. Honestly, one misses out a lot in life when they live and think in this way, as there is a lot of beauty they miss out on. I think pity is a natural human feeling, and I know we can have it towards humans and other species. If the action that causes that pity cannot be reasonably justified, that action should not be taken. Even besides this, the stated opinion is not very rational either. Scientists, using the basis or organized rational thought, have done a lot to prove that this is exactly the wrong way to think, just look at the results around us. For a small example, plenty of current human diseases have likely come about as a result of our disregard for the environment.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:07 PM
Disgusting reactionary nonsense&#33; This is the basic logic of environmentalism, and that is why it is reactionary. Massively increased development is the answer to the problems that are facing humanity - it is not the problem&#33; It is only the petit-bourgeois that can support such views.

You constantly call my views reactionary. Yet you reply to my statement that human developement does not help the Earth by implying humans are the Earth. This nonsense epitomises reactionism. It is a known fact that humans aren&#39;t the Earth(duh). Furthermore, although you place plenty of blame on the "bourgeois" for human problems and place them on an interesting side, you base your whole arguement on the claim that the systems which we have used to carry out developement, systems which they dominate, are fundamentally correct. You fail to realize that these systems were not merely created to "better the species," that&#39;s why they have always benefitted the few. Your solution, at least in terms of the environment, is to create more extreme versions of the present systems, to create equality. The system itself is the problem, anyone who knows a thing leftism, including Marxism would know that. Your method of thinking almost implies that everyone should become like the bourgeoisie. That is false reasoning.


[email protected] 4 2005, 05:07 PM
LuZhiming, your views are very reactionary. Enlighten yourself and fix up your ideas.

Vanguard1917, your views are almost opposite of what you claim they stand for, start understanding what you claim to understand and stop being arrogant.

[ComradeChris]

NO&#33; We do not have enough&#33; Ask the impoverished people of the &#39;third world&#39;, who live in slums and shanty towns, whether they would prefer to live in a big city, with all its advantages. I&#39;m sure we know what they would choose. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

I find it funny that you think big cities are better. ~2,000 people die prematurely in Ontario due to smog produced by big cities. It was ~1,000 in Toronto alone. I can smell that big city....oh yeah...feel the burn :rolleyes: .

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thank you. I won&#39;t lie to you, I don&#39;t see how anyone with such pscychotic views(and I don&#39;t mean this as an insult, I just thinks these kinds of goals truly are psychotic) can consider themselves a "follower" of leftist ideologies. And you clearly do not know what the word reactionary is, your firm belief in the power and goodness of man is the truly reactionary, ultraconservative belief. My belief is one many men have had for centuries, based on man&#39;s own experiences with nature.

I&#39;m sorry, but if the power and goodness of humanity was nonexistant then forming a stable classless society would be impossible. How do you reconcile this, unless you believe that classless society cannot exist?
Controlling the earth is not psychotic, it is logical. If we do not at least attempt to control the natural forces which surround us, then they will overwhelm us - nature has this tendency to occasionally prune the numbers of successful species. Humans are a very successful species. It is in our interest to redirect the forces of nature wherever and whenever we can to less harmful channels.
Controlling the environment is a lot more prevalent than you think. Building a city? That&#39;s controlling the environment, shaping it to suit out needs.
Hydroelectric dam? Again, controlling the environment to our gain.


Yes, I am thinking of these matters. The difference is that I do not have implanted in my head this dogma that "man must dominate, man must do all it can." That is a very selfish view on life.

But humanity must do what it can to survive. It&#39;s in our instincts as a species.
I am opposed to the moral-environmentalist dogma that we must lie back and take whatever nature throw at us, or handle the entire earth with kid gloves.
The earth has been here for 4.5 Billion years&#33; It is unlikely to be destroyed by us (Or even rendered uninhabitable) anytime soon.


No, the less humans there are, the better it is for the ones who live(Unless it gets too low where reproduction and such becomes a problem, of course). And as I said, though humans should prioritize ourselves more than others, we must place limits on our activities so we don&#39;t so drastically damage the Earth. It is our responsibility because we are the only species with the power to do such things.

But as long as as many humans as possible are living comfortably, who gives a damn? If increasing the sum total of human happiness means building nuclear power plants, burning oil and dumping rubbish in designated area rather than leaving it lying around, then so be it.


Again, this is just a fanatical and selfish "the world revolves around me/us" point of view. Honestly, one misses out a lot in life when they live and think in this way, as there is a lot of beauty they miss out on.

More EnviroFanatic bollocks. Caring only for humanity as a whole is not selfish, being attatched to the environment solely because your personal moral compass dictates it is selfish.

And cities are good because they are a logistical dream - It is so much easier to provide for a few large cities than a few thousand villages. Plus everything is so much closer, meaning you do not have to travel for miles to get anywhere important.

LuZhiming, I suggest you follow Vanguard1917&#39;s advice.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jun 4 2005, 10:55 PM--> (NoXion &#064; Jun 4 2005, 10:55 PM)I&#39;m sorry, but if the power and goodness of humanity was nonexistant then forming a stable classless society would be impossible. How do you reconcile this, unless you believe that classless society cannot exist?[/b]

I&#39;m sorry, I didn&#39;t actually mean literally "the power and goodness of man." I didn&#39;t want to retype what he said, so I carelessly threw a couple of words out rather than thinking of terms that would adequately rephrase his words.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:55 PM
Controlling the earth is not psychotic, it is logical. If we do not at least attempt to control the natural forces which surround us, then they will overwhelm us - nature has this tendency to occasionally prune the numbers of successful species. Humans are a very successful species. It is in our interest to redirect the forces of nature wherever and whenever we can to less harmful channels.

If you believe in the power of nature enough that you feel it really can "prune" species&#39; numbers, I don&#39;t know why you would want to try fooling with it. There are many ways to control the Earth, we do it all the time, but as I said there are limits we must place on it. In response to the idea that nature can weaken our numbers, all I can say is that I hope that happens. That is much better then us destroying our whole species....


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:55 PM
Controlling the environment is a lot more prevalent than you think. Building a city? That&#39;s controlling the environment, shaping it to suit out needs.
Hydroelectric dam? Again, controlling the environment to our gain.

You seem to have misinterpreted me, if you read the post before this last one you responded to my position on the matter should be clearer. I never suggested we shouldn&#39;t control the environment at all. Controlling the environment is our strength.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:55 PM
But humanity must do what it can to survive. It&#39;s in our instincts as a species. I am opposed to the moral-environmentalist dogma that we must lie back and take whatever nature throw at us, or handle the entire earth with kid gloves.
The earth has been here for 4.5 Billion years&#33; It is unlikely to be destroyed by us (Or even rendered uninhabitable) anytime soon.

First, man&#39;s survival is not at all threatened by anything other than man as far as we know. We are not acting for our survival. Men might have their survival threatened, of course not all of us are secure and ok. I believe it&#39;s terrible for people to suffer and I think they should be able to live in better conditions, but that is just not going to happen(without terrible repercussions at least) with our population being the current size it is. So that&#39;s just tough luck if you are suffering in poor living conditions at the moment.

Let me say I don&#39;t know where you got the idea that man should take "whatever nature throw[s] at us." I simply said there are limits, and if you have in mind things like natural disasters, we absolutely should not dick around with trying to stop them. Such technology could be dangerous in the wrong hands anyway, so it would not be worth trying to create such things like other users seem to wish will happen.

Using the word "anytime soon" seems to suggest that you don&#39;t care about what our actions will result in in the future. I&#39;m not assuming, but if you mean that, then I don&#39;t know why you are talking about care for the human race, as one who has such an attitude clearly does not give a damn. Whatever happens as a result of our actions is our responsibility, and although none of us would be affected(unless you believe in the afterlife), I detest the thought of that. The fact that the Earth has been here for as long as it has means nothing anyhow. To our knowledge, the Earth has never had a creature which controls powers that we do. Many of you have yourself said that &#39;we are different,&#39; and we are, that&#39;s why we have to careful with what we are doing. We have more power over the Earth then any other creature, and that is not always a good thing, especially when in our societies the people with most power are usually the ones who lied/cheated/raped/killed their way to the top.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:55 PM
But as long as as many humans as possible are living comfortably, who gives a damn? If increasing the sum total of human happiness means building nuclear power plants, burning oil and dumping rubbish in designated area rather than leaving it lying around, then so be it.

This is such a contradiction to me, you decide to care about the good of man because you apparently have feelings that dictate it, but those feelings dissapear and you become hard when it comes to anything else. Again, this is just what I&#39;m talking, fanatical humanism. The humanist hates other species for being other species. These plans are self-destructive though anyway.....


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:55 PM
More EnviroFanatic bollocks. Caring only for humanity as a whole is not selfish, being attatched to the environment solely because your personal moral compass dictates it is selfish.

Sure it is, it is (literally) the exact definition of selfishness. Also, it is misleading to say you care "only for humanity as a whole." You do not care for the betterement of man to a great extent, you belive that man should exist in great numbers to limit man. You do not care at all that these plans are (at the very least) a potential threat to the safety of humanity.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:55 PM
And cities are good because they are a logistical dream - It is so much easier to provide for a few large cities than a few thousand villages. Plus everything is so much closer, meaning you do not have to travel for miles to get anywhere important.

Why, mainly, do we need to travel so much in this society? To go work as wage slaves and to go to buy meaningless consumer goods. Some of you supposed leftists are something else, you justify the Capitalist and other methods of life, but criticize it only because it is not enough. The truth is that we don&#39;t need to have everyone driving for miles and miles every single day to take part in these mockeries. Societies can and should be built differently then that.


[email protected] 4 2005, 10:55 PM
LuZhiming, I suggest you follow Vanguard1917&#39;s advice.

I suggest that people should stop being trolls and giving advice they know the recipient will not take seriously.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you believe in the power of nature enough that you feel it really can "prune" species&#39; numbers, I don&#39;t know why you would want to try fooling with it.

Err, maybe so we can redirect those forces where they don&#39;t harm us? is that a good enough reason?


There are many ways to control the Earth, we do it all the time, but as I said there are limits we must place on it.

Why? We always work in our own best interests. Communism requires that &#39;best interests&#39; be extended to the enitrety of human society.


In response to the idea that nature can weaken our numbers, all I can say is that I hope that happens. That is much better then us destroying our whole species....

Wow, you&#39;re wishing pain and suffering on innocent people. Look who&#39;s calling me a psychopath.


First, man&#39;s survival is not at all threatened by anything other than man as far as we know.

Try comets, asteroids, climate change or Yellowstone Park exploding. Even if these do not make us extinct, they&#39;ll make us wish we were.

I suggest you rethink the angle at which you approach environmentalism from.
Do you do think that we should try to minimalise human impact on the environment because it&#39;s pointless trying to build a new society if the quality of life for everyone is shit, or do you adhere to backwards reactionary anti-human principles?

I find it funny that people like you can go on about fanaticism in the era of reactionary eco-terrorists.


Why, mainly, do we need to travel so much in this society? To go work as wage slaves and to go to buy meaningless consumer goods. Some of you supposed leftists are something else, you justify the Capitalist and other methods of life, but criticize it only because it is not enough. The truth is that we don&#39;t need to have everyone driving for miles and miles every single day to take part in these mockeries. Societies can and should be built differently then that.

I&#39;m sorry, but you are wrong. People will still want to go bowling, watch movies, and not live in rural idiocy. This means you are perfectly free to live in a little commune in the middle of nowhere forking out horseshit, but I&#39;m willing to bet quite a few people will prefer civilisation over primitivism.

I&#39;ll stick with civilisation and technology, thanks.

[Vallegrande]

We cannot completely understand nature much like we cant understand new viruses that pop up and mutate every now and then. Nature changes as we change, it goes back and forth, no one ever gains complete control of the other.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jun 5 2005, 06:19 AM--> (NoXion &#064; Jun 5 2005, 06:19 AM)Err, maybe so we can redirect those forces where they don&#39;t harm us? is that a good enough reason? [/b]

No, not really. Have you ever considered that maybe these things happen for a reason? Maybe this "balance" keeps things how they should be? Scientists have thought that for years now, although I guess science is only selectively important to humanists when they want to impose their ideas.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:19 AM
Why? We always work in our own best interests. Communism requires that &#39;best interests&#39; be extended to the enitrety of human society.

The best realistic interests that is. The best interests of society are that the world not be an overcrowded human shit hole with unnecessary polluting substances unleashing constant destruction. And again, I repeat, it is not in our best interests to have, for example(to quote Comrade Chris), "2,000 people die prematurely in Ontario due to smog produced by big cities," or global warming, or trash, or disease, or whatever other crap has been started by people with ideas like yours.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:19 AM
Wow, you&#39;re wishing pain and suffering on innocent people. Look who&#39;s calling me a psychopath.

It isn&#39;t a good idea to use words out of your vocabular range. Psychosis is characterized by lost contact with reality, nothing I have said is anything other than realistic.

Anytime nature kills something, that thing is innocent. And guess what? It happens. These people are no more innocent then any plant or animal. So please don&#39;t use the word "innocent" here like it actually means something. I would want to "wish pain and suffering" on any animal either, but, as a matter of health, I would like to eat, so that animal is going to go through pain and suffering. It isn&#39;t pleasent or nice, but it is a matter of neccessity, the same applies to this scenario. Like I said, it would be a wonderful convenience if 90% of humans would dissapear.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:19 AM
Try comets, asteroids, climate change or Yellowstone Park exploding. Even if these do not make us extinct, they&#39;ll make us wish we were.

Comets and asteroids: :lol: Good one. Like I said "man&#39;s survival is not at all threatened by anything other than man as far as we know". Sure, maybe there is some comet somewhere out there that is a threat to the human species....But maybe there isn&#39;t. We don&#39;t know anything about that or even have a clue about it. This is all pure speculation.]

Climate change: I&#39;m not 100% sure of what you&#39;re talking about here, but if you mean global warming, then I have no comment to make other than those I have already made, as any rational person should know how to fix this problem.

Yellowstone Park exploding: No comment.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:19 AM
I suggest you rethink the angle at which you approach environmentalism from.
Do you do think that we should try to minimalise human impact on the environment because it&#39;s pointless trying to build a new society if the quality of life for everyone is shit, or do you adhere to backwards reactionary anti-human principles?

I am not quite sure what you are referring to in the second choice, so I can&#39;t exactly answer this question(I assume in the first choice "everyone" means all humans). Something tells me that the answer is both though.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:19 AM
I find it funny that people like you can go on about fanaticism in the era of reactionary eco-terrorists.

What an interesting suggestion. This is the "era of reactionary eco-terrorists." Not the era of giant, polluting corporations or any such things, but the era of reactionary eco-terrorists. This is more of your interpretation of Communism I presume. :rolleyes: Funny how your words sound so much like those of the people you claim to be against. I find that funny.


[email protected] 5 2005, 06:19 AM
I&#39;m sorry, but you are wrong. People will still want to go bowling, watch movies, and not live in rural idiocy. This means you are perfectly free to live in a little commune in the middle of nowhere forking out horseshit, but I&#39;m willing to bet quite a few people will prefer civilisation over primitivism.

I&#39;ll stick with civilisation and technology, thanks.

First off, implying that people who live rural lifestyles are &#39;idiots" is quite an absurd notion, for very obvious reasons. Second, putting aside that bowling and watching movies are (more than anything else) cultural practices which would likely not be as active in leftists societies(for a few reasons), you still don&#39;t need to have people driving polluting vehicles for miles and miles everyday to do these things. Did you know that there are places in this country where people can actually walk to places to do things like that?(Imagine that&#33; :huh:) Do you think for the last 35 years or so people living in rural areas have always driven vehicles to these places?(Especially kids) Believe it or not, when you don&#39;t have overcrowded, poorly designed, crime infested cities, it is pretty easy to walk places like these. Lastly, I never said a thing about getting rid of civilization completely, you&#39;re putting words in my mouth here.

[socialistfuture]

By the way, the World Social Forum is dominated by petty-bourgeois ideologues who seem to be able to provide no real solutions to the miserable problems facing the many, many millions of HUMAN BEINGS of this world. So the fact that you use the WSF to refute anti-environmentalism also tells us a great deal about where you stand. These people certainly aren&#39;t radicals; they&#39;re as radical as the liberals that speak at conferences organised by imperialist organisations such as the United Nations.

sorry maybe this thread is irrelevent. im not on the net much so thats why i didnt reply earlier.
the World social forum is not like the united nations. it is far more varied and has not enforced sanctions that have killed thousands for one. it is not dominated by rich countries.
so what do you advocate in its place? yes it is true i did not read the 8 or so pages of posts. basically the arguement often comes down to some poeple thinking it is anti humanist to be pro enviroment. them thinking that people who support the enviroment value it over human life. many greenies that i know link the two. eg my mates dad who is in the greens and a staunch marxist. human rights - enviromental rights.
im on this site to learn and debate not score demagogue points for attacking others and questioning their &#39;redness&#39; or radicalism on the scale of commie puritanism. if me supporting the WSF means to u that i am less commited fine

[Rural_Communalist]

New predictions out for Ontario. This year more than 5000 people are expected to die due to smog related illnesses. Not to mention it is believed things like Asthma are at a greater risk of developing because of the smog. God damn environmentalism&#33; :rolleyes:

[Vallegrande]

Smog is one of them. There is another that we dont hear much about. The trans fat that Americans consume at high amounts actually conflicts with the lungs, brain, every part of your body. Instead of our bodies being replaced with saturated fat for our lungs and brains, we are consuming trans fat, which constricts our organs from completely functioning.

I have thought about when people started getting asthma and these other illnesses. During the early 1900&#39;s? One cause was the industrial expansion. However the most important part I can think of is the drastic change of eating among Americans. It is enough to cause all this asthma, cancer, all that.

[poster_child]

The planet earth is something much greater than ourselves. It is a legacy that we will leave for every generation of humans, plants and other animals.

Rainforests, forests, oceans and even deserts are important. Humans are merely other animals inhabiting this planet and all other species have the same to live here as we do. There is no excuse for human suffering. If I believed in anything but that, I would not be here. But, there is also the animal suffering to think about as well.

"there ain&#39;t no power like the power of the people, &#39;cause the power of the people don&#39;t stop"