Greenpeace, WWF, etc

[hemybel]

I&#39;m just wondering, if you&#39;re a Leftist, what can you say about the group Greenpeace, WWF, you know.. those environment groups... <_< I think if you say leftist it&#39;s more on politics, society and the system... are they aware too about the environment?

[red_orchestra]

There is certianly nothing wrong with these groups as long as you keep a reallistic perspective about their issues. Some of these groups are super-idealistic... be warned.

[hemybel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:51 AM
There is certianly nothing wrong with these groups as long as you keep a reallistic perspective about their issues. Some of these groups are super-idealistic... be warned.
What do you mean by super idealistic? I see leftist-activists like them...
What I mean is this... you see these people in their boat fighting the killing of whales... They went half across the world just to do that... it&#39;s ok with me... whales are endangered species... And you also see these leftists-activists do the same... only this time, not about their concerns with whales but of people especially the workers... They are in the streets too... throwing bottles... to those passing limos (employers) ... they are just both fighting for what is right, in a different level... different ways of expressing their thoughts and emotions... my question is this.. .what&#39;s the difference?

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by hemybel+Jan 20 2006, 06:18 AM--> (hemybel @ Jan 20 2006, 06:18 AM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 05:51 AM
There is certianly nothing wrong with these groups as long as you keep a reallistic perspective about their issues. Some of these groups are super-idealistic... be warned.
What do you mean by super idealistic? I see leftist-activists like them...
What I mean is this... you see these people in their boat fighting the killing of whales... They went half across the world just to do that... it&#39;s ok with me... whales are endangered species... And you also see these leftists-activists do the same... only this time, not about their concerns with whales but of people especially the workers... They are in the streets too... throwing bottles... to those passing limos (employers) ... they are just both fighting for what is right, in a different level... different ways of expressing their thoughts and emotions... my question is this.. .what&#39;s the difference? [/b]
One is saving useless whales, the other oppressed people. To the person doing it they may be the same, but in the world at large they have very different effects.

[hemybel]

Originally posted by Dark Exodus+Jan 20 2006, 01:32 PM--> (Dark Exodus @ Jan 20 2006, 01:32 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:18 AM

[email protected] 20 2006, 05:51 AM
There is certianly nothing wrong with these groups as long as you keep a reallistic perspective about their issues. Some of these groups are super-idealistic... be warned.
What do you mean by super idealistic? I see leftist-activists like them...
What I mean is this... you see these people in their boat fighting the killing of whales... They went half across the world just to do that... it&#39;s ok with me... whales are endangered species... And you also see these leftists-activists do the same... only this time, not about their concerns with whales but of people especially the workers... They are in the streets too... throwing bottles... to those passing limos (employers) ... they are just both fighting for what is right, in a different level... different ways of expressing their thoughts and emotions... my question is this.. .what&#39;s the difference?
One is saving useless whales, the other oppressed people. To the person doing it they may be the same, but in the world at large they have very different effects. [/b]
so for you it&#39;s ok that these evil industrialists from Japan will hunt all the whales as many as they can?

[Dark Exodus]

Nice strawman.


Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:25 AM
so for you it&#39;s ok that these evil industrialists from Japan will hunt all the whales as many as they can?

I never support capitalism, but I don&#39;t care about whales.

[Comrade J]

I don&#39;t care about whales very much, at least in relative terms (ie- people ought to concern theirselves with human poverty etc. before they save whales) but if a bunch of people in a boat minimise the number of whales a huge whaling ship catches in a day, then I&#39;m all for it; less profit for the capitalists at the top of the company.

[Sentinel]

The idealism of environmentalist groups is admirable but naive. I can of course see
the reasons behind protecting whales, since they are a quite intelligent species, but nonetheless I think class struggle must always be considered more important.

These groups are wasting their time struggling against symptoms of capitalism and fail to see the necessity to combat capitalism itself.

Capitalism exploits our planet in many unnecessary ways, but our main problem is that it exploits the proletariat.

It is the liberation and development of the human race that comes first. Other species
should not be unnecessarily harmed, but when we come to the point when we have to choose between interests of the human race and animal rights, human progress comes
first.

[ComTom]

I have absolute hatred towards these enviromentalist groups. They have no concern of the quality of life for people, they just think, if I can live without electricity and feast of leafs in my backyard, everybody should and we should get out in the streets for that. IF they had control of the goverment they would destroy factories and cause many people to lose their jobs. I don&#39;t think enviromentalist should be considered leftists at all, they don&#39;t respect workers movements, and they only focus on the agenda of blowing up anything that will cause pollution. But they forget, its the common human that causes pollution, not state, not capitalism. Armageddon is inevitable and we should work towards not seeing that day, but it will happen and theres nothing they can do about it.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:55 AM
I&#39;m just wondering, if you&#39;re a Leftist, what can you say about the group Greenpeace, WWF, you know.. those environment groups... <_< I think if you say leftist it&#39;s more on politics, society and the system... are they aware too about the environment?
I hold them in high regard, they are the ones our there working for what they believe in. I would say that naive to think that communism is going solve all of our environmental problems. I&#39;m all for a communistic society, but it must be sustainable. What is the point of having a society with true liberty, justice, and democracy if the planet is a shithole?

[ComTom]

BUT my freind Datura, do you know what these groups advocate. They advocate the immediate destruction of industry and the creation of a vegan agarian society. I think that we will make a gradual change towards anti-pollution once there is a classless society and there is no state, which will take a while, but then there will be complete peace and we will no longer have to worry about any of the worlds problems like threats of the class struggle or the greenpeace terrorist group. Then we can bring in major reform for the goverment.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:32 AM
BUT my freind Datura, do you know what these groups advocate. They advocate the immediate destruction of industry and the creation of a vegan agarian society. I think that we will make a gradual change towards anti-pollution once there is a classless society and there is no state, which will take a while, but then there will be complete peace and we will no longer have to worry about any of the worlds problems like threats of the class struggle or the greenpeace terrorist group. Then we can bring in major reform for the goverment.
Here is what they do in thier own words:

Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns

WWF
http://www.worldwildlife.org/about/index.cfm

The assertion that &#39;they&#39; advocate a vegan agarian society and are terrorists is sweeping in the least.

[ComTom]

Thats what they want you to think. Its obvious they are trying to legitimize their cause of funding groups like ALF and ELF. PETA fuckin post communiques of the two terrorist groups for them. Do you got that&#33; There terrorists&#33; I don&#39;t support any of this&#33;

[Delirium]

By that logic this is a terrorist website and those who post here are terrorists.

I support the ELF, the ALF and Peta i have less empathy for. This is for the stability of our biosphere and climate, not about wearing fur and eating animals.

[pedro san pedro]

Greenpeace has never endorsed the actions of groups such as the ALF - infact, they have publically condemned them&#33;

nor have they ever been involved in an animal rights campaign - they are an environmental group - please at least try to see the distinction between the 2


They advocate the immediate destruction of industry and the creation of a vegan agarian society.

i&#39;m wondering where you heard this little gem - care to provide a source for this. nither wwf or greenpeace has this anywhere on their agendas.

i&#39;m not sure why you feel that they are so against workers rights?? i can think of a couple of greenpeace campaigns off the top of my head that are linked to the rights of workers. the first being the campaign against dow chemical to clean up the union carbide site at bhopal, india and to compensate the workers:

On the night of December 2nd, 1984, over 40 tons of lethal methyl isocyante (MIC) gas spilled out from Union Carbide&#39;s pesticide factory in Bhopal, India. With safety systems either malfunctioning or turned off, an area of 40 square kilometers, with a resident population of over half a million, was soon covered with a dense cloud of MIC gas. People woke in their homes to fits of coughing, their lungs filling with fluid. In the span of the first three days after the accident, over 8,000 people died in Bhopal, mainly from cardiac and respiratory arrest.

Since the disaster, over 20,000 people have died from exposure-related illnesses, and of the approximately 520,000 people exposed to the poisonous gases, an estimated 120,000 remain chronically ill.

Justice in Bhopal

Justice has eluded the people of Bhopal for over 17 years. Union Carbide negotiated a settlement with the Indian Government in 1989 for US &#036;470 million, a total of US&#036;370 to US&#036;533 per victim, a paltry sum that is too small to pay for most medical bills. In 1987, a Bhopal District Court charged Union Carbide officials, including then CEO Warren Anderson, with culpable homicide, grievous assault and other serious offences. In 1992, a warrant was issued for Anderson&#39;s arrest.

Dow, since its merger with Union Carbide, has refused to assume these liabilities in India, despite the fact that over 20,000 people in vicinity of the Union Carbide factory continue to be exposed to toxic chemicals through groundwater and soil contamination. This stands in stark contrast to Dow&#39;s acceptance of Union Carbide&#39;s liabilities in Texas, where they recently settled an asbestos-related lawsuit.



how is the above not linked to workers rights????



Greenpeace also successfully saw the instigation of the treaty of basel which banned the trade of industrial waste from the developed to the developing worlds. this stopped large corperations from dunping toxic wastes onto communities that did not have the resources to deal with clean up safely.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:55 AM
I&#39;m just wondering, if you&#39;re a Leftist, what can you say about the group Greenpeace, WWF, you know.. those environment groups... <_< I think if you say leftist it&#39;s more on politics, society and the system... are they aware too about the environment?
Greenpiss is sometimes called "the avon ladies of the eco movement". Due to their penchant for door to door solicitation and not much else.
WWF are compromise friendly, white collar, high salary, career parasites.

That said they both do some good.

But it would be better to support a hands on approach which groups like Earth First and the Sea Shepards adopt.
On the west coast of N. America, left and green issues go together with most people I know.

[DEPAVER]

Don&#39;t care about whales? Well, I&#39;d suggest you take another look at that idealogy, perhaps an informed look.

All animals, including humans, are part of ecosystems and for an ecosystem to be healthy, it needs all of its functioning parts. The health of ecosystems therefore affects human health, not just whales.

This is one of the core, dysfunctional idealogies of modern man. The thought that man is somehow separate or "above" other animals. If you carefully study anthropology, you&#39;ll find that successful human societies that existing for thousands of years did not hold this view. They, in fact, held a view that is the complete antithesis of this view, which in the western world, has deep roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

If you&#39;re interested in supporting environmental groups or if you want to see where the real work is done, examine grass roots groups, not big, multi-national groups.

[Dark Exodus]

All animals, including humans, are part of ecosystems and for an ecosystem to be healthy, it needs all of its functioning parts. The health of ecosystems therefore affects human health, not just whales.

How was my health affected by the dodo?


This is one of the core, dysfunctional idealogies of modern man. The thought that man is somehow separate or "above" other animals. If you carefully study anthropology, you&#39;ll find that successful human societies that existing for thousands of years did not hold this view. They, in fact, held a view that is the complete antithesis of this view, which in the western world, has deep roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Did any of these old societies acheive anything? The aboriginal tribes in Australia didn&#39;t invent the bow after thousands of years and the only number in their mathematical system is 1.

Now I don&#39;t have a problem with that (and I believe some of these tribes are quite advanced in some areas), people should be able to live how they like. However these societies can hardly be called &#39;successful&#39;. Successful at what?

We are separate and above animals, we will eventually be able to break out of our dependance on the ecosystem.

[DEPAVER]

How was my health affected by the dodo?

No one said your health was affected by the dodo. Do you live in the same bioregion that the dodo did? Only the animals that lived in that bioregion would have been affected by the loss of the dodo.
Do you know what fed on the dodo? Do you know what the dodo fed on? Do you know how those species were impacted by the dodo?
The same principles apply to your bioregion, only with other animals.


Did any of these old societies acheive anything? The aboriginal tribes in Australia didn&#39;t invent the bow after thousands of years and the only number in their mathematical system is 1.

Your definition of "achievement" is most likely notibly different from theirs. You can&#39;t compare culturally relative terms like "achievement" across those types of cultural boundaries.

But the Ohlone and the Athabascan peoples of the North American continent achieved one thing. They lived successfully in one area for thousands of years before western man showed up and fucked up the neighborhood.

Some Athabascan people lived successfully without governments and hierarchy. There were leaders, but no tribal chief or councils of leaders. In essence, they successfully lived anarchistically.


Now I don&#39;t have a problem with that (and I believe some of these tribes are quite advanced in some areas), people should be able to live how they like. However these societies can hardly be called &#39;successful&#39;. Successful at what?

How about successful at living?


We are separate and above animals, we will eventually be able to break out of our dependance on the ecosystem.

That&#39;s completely false. You are an animal. Just a different species. A highly evolved and successful animal, but just another animal, nonetheless. And you will never "break out of the ecosystem." Not even in death.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 26 2006, 09:12 PM

The health of ecosystems therefore affects human health, not just whales.

How was my health affected by the dodo?


we will eventually be able to break out of our dependance on the ecosystem.
The dodo was not an ecosystem.

How do you propose to break our dependance on ecosystems? I am not being facetious , I would like to know.

[red_orchestra]

...I think if we struggle for a classless society a lot of the exploitation in other areas will vanish too. Groups like PETA and GreenPeace while they have good intentions are pretty 1 track- thinking. I think strong Socialist societies would be much more "inclusive" and think broader about the impact of humanity on the planet because of the nature of Socialism in general- it is a much broader philosophy.

[Dark Exodus]

No one said your health was affected by the dodo. Do you live in the same bioregion that the dodo did? Only the animals that lived in that bioregion would have been affected by the loss of the dodo.
Do you know what fed on the dodo? Do you know what the dodo fed on? Do you know how those species were impacted by the dodo?
The same principles apply to your bioregion, only with other animals.

So how will letting the numbers of whales fall affect humanity as whole?


Your definition of "achievement" is most likely notibly different from theirs. You can&#39;t compare culturally relative terms like "achievement" across those types of cultural boundaries.

Then don&#39;t transport &#39;success&#39; over this boundary.


How about successful at living?

Most of these tribes have either been destroyed or changed forever, if they were not so complacent then this might not have happened. You could say that if we all lived like them then they would have been fine, but if we all lived like that then humanity would die to an asteroid, or the death of our sun.

We cannot be complacant, it may sound like Sci-Fi, but I&#39;m sure airplanes would have sounded fanciful to someone 200 years ago.


The dodo was not an ecosystem.

And the whale is?


How do you propose to break our dependance on ecosystems? I am not being facetious , I would like to know.

Technology. We already have anyway, we are only partially dependant on the ecosystem as it is. The problem is that poorer countries are the more dependant.


I support the ELF, the ALF and Peta i have less empathy for. This is for the stability of our biosphere and climate, not about wearing fur and eating animals.

It is possible to oppose capitalisim and its effects on the environment and still oppose ALF, &#39;wearing fur&#39; and &#39;eating animals&#39; are the main issues with these groups, not the environment for our sakes (just look at the vast majority of content on there websites and its content).

[ComTom]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 25 2006, 03:01 AM
By that logic this is a terrorist website and those who post here are terrorists.

I support the ELF, the ALF and Peta i have less empathy for. This is for the stability of our biosphere and climate, not about wearing fur and eating animals.
ALF puts peoples life into danger. People could die from ALF&#33; THERE TERRORIST. The difference between ALF and us is that they don&#39;t care if innocent people die and we do care&#33; Let me share some harmful info about these groups:

- -"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it."
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, September 1989, Vogue Magazine

HOLY SHIT&#33; Did you see this quote&#33; PETA doesn&#39;t care about people&#33; They think the lifes of a bunch of damn chickens are more important than African kids lying on the ground of a little hut dying of a terrible disease&#33;

[Delirium]

Originally posted by ComTom+Jan 26 2006, 10:41 PM--> (ComTom @ Jan 26 2006, 10:41 PM)
Datura [email protected] 25 2006, 03:01 AM
By that logic this is a terrorist website and those who post here are terrorists.

I support the ELF, the ALF and Peta i have less empathy for. This is for the stability of our biosphere and climate, not about wearing fur and eating animals.
ALF puts peoples life into danger. People could die from ALF&#33; THERE TERRORIST. The difference between ALF and us is that they don&#39;t care if innocent people die and we do care&#33; Let me share some harmful info about these groups:

- -"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it."
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, September 1989, Vogue Magazine

HOLY SHIT&#33; Did you see this quote&#33; PETA doesn&#39;t care about people&#33; They think the lifes of a bunch of damn chickens are more important than African kids lying on the ground of a little hut dying of a terrible disease&#33; [/b]
This is broad, baseless, and imflammatory BULLSHITT

[ComTom]

Originally posted by Datura inoxia+Jan 27 2006, 02:45 AM--> (Datura inoxia @ Jan 27 2006, 02:45 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:41 PM

Datura [email protected] 25 2006, 03:01 AM
By that logic this is a terrorist website and those who post here are terrorists.

I support the ELF, the ALF and Peta i have less empathy for. This is for the stability of our biosphere and climate, not about wearing fur and eating animals.
ALF puts peoples life into danger. People could die from ALF&#33; THERE TERRORIST. The difference between ALF and us is that they don&#39;t care if innocent people die and we do care&#33; Let me share some harmful info about these groups:

- -"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it."
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, September 1989, Vogue Magazine

HOLY SHIT&#33; Did you see this quote&#33; PETA doesn&#39;t care about people&#33; They think the lifes of a bunch of damn chickens are more important than African kids lying on the ground of a little hut dying of a terrible disease&#33;
This is broad, baseless, and imflammatory BULLSHITT [/b]
How sad it is that you do not want to accept the truth that your nice little animal rights groups are terrorists and have no concern for people, only for goats. I got a question for you, if you could choose from these following what would you do?:

1. Have a classless society globally in exchange that every animal in the world will die.

2. Have every animal in the world live and remain in a world of capitalist explotation.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:54 AM
I got a question for you, if you could choose from these following what would you do?:

1. Have a classless society globally in exchange that every animal in the world will die.

If every animal on the earth (excluding humans for fun) died, out global ecosystem would collapse and humans would also shortly be extinct.


2. Have every animal in the world live and remain in a world of
capitalist explotation.

I pick this, default (by dumbass question)

As my previous posts have indicated i am no animal rights activist, but when i see utter crap such as this i have to speak my mind.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 20 2006, 01:32 PM
One is saving useless whales, the other oppressed people. To the person doing it they may be the same, but in the world at large they have very different effects.

Many activists do both. Why? Because the slaughter of whales is linked to the exploitation of human beings -- it is all a result of the same destructive system. I have nothing against environmentalists who are anti-capitalist. How can you say that our natural environment is "useless"? If whales are "useless" then why kill them? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

[ComTom]

WEll I am not attacking you comrade, but it is clear that these enviromentalist groups are millitant for a idiotic cause, ANIMALS&#33; PETA cares more about animals than people, its quite obvious. I would consider PETA a animal nationalist group&#33; Yes a animal nationalist group. These people love animals so much that it frightens me when I see them at rallies when they march up and down streets with pictures of the carcass of cows.

I mean out of all the activist groups in the world, there is the labor movement against capitalist exploitation against people, then there is anti-war movements against war that hurts people, then there is civil right movements against rascism against people, then there is PETA and these enviromentalist groups who are for TREES and CHICKENS&#33; Whats up with that? I LIKE CHICKEN&#33; IF SOMEONE ROASTED ME A PUPPIE, I WOULD EAT IT, I WOULD LOVE TO TRY DIFFERENT MEATS&#33; WE WERE PLACED ON THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN FOR A REASON, I AM SURE THAT EVERY LEFTIST IN HISTORY WEREN&#39;T VEGANS.

What are these animal rights groups doing anyway? EVER SINCE THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN HISTORY WE HAVE BEEN EATING MEAT&#33; ALSO I WOULD LOVE TO END GLOBAL WARMING AND ALL THAT, BUT WE MUST CARE FOR OUR PEOPLE THEN DESTROY THE POLLUTING MACHINE&#33;

What are they gonna do if they could change stuff&#33;? People are gonna eat meat, because its good. If we could save 1,500,000 African children by killing chickens, would PEDA support that? Awnser all these questions please.



P.S. I love eating puppy, its a interesting treat. I have shot endangered species and fed them to my family. I have kidnapped rabbits from pet stores and disected them for scientific reasons. I think that there is nothing wrong with this, people have been doing this for years&#33; I got an idea, lets sue the people Shanghai for selling dead dog on their city streets&#33; Or lets sue 55 starving Sudanese kids who killed a animal on the endangered species list to feed themselves.

[DEPAVER]

So how will letting the numbers of whales fall affect humanity as whole?

With all due respect, this is 7th grade biology. I really don&#39;t have time to educate you on basic science.
The health of whales affects the health of oceans. The health of oceans affects man, because man depends on the ocean for sustenance.




Then don&#39;t transport &#39;success&#39; over this boundary.

This statement makes no sense.


Most of these tribes have either been destroyed or changed forever, if they were not so complacent then this might not have happened.

Complacent? How do you know they were "complacent?" If you&#39;re a leftist (and I have my doubts), I should inform you that that societies like the Ohlone were the embodiment of the type of society you&#39;d most likely attempt to create, but were destroyed by the type of society you abhor.


You could say that if we all lived like them then they would have been fine, but if we all lived like that then humanity would die to an asteroid, or the death of our sun.

This is a non-sequitur.


And the whale is?

No one claimed the whale was an ecosystem. You brought up whales, which are just one element of an ecosystem.


Technology. We already have anyway, we are only partially dependant on the ecosystem as it is. The problem is that poorer countries are the more dependant.

I did not ask the question to which you are responding to (please don&#39;t mix responses to multiple people in a single post), but technology requires resources from ecosystems. Therefore, your point is not valid.

Furthermore, The belief (and I realize you aren&#39;t totally depending on science and technology) that science and technology can provide solutions to our current environmental problems is not only flawed but a dangerous idea, in my opinion.
The conservation of mass principle and the second law of thermodynamics dictate that almost all remediation technologies cause unavoidable negative environmental impacts. And secondly, I don&#39;t see how it is possible to design industrial processes that have no negative environmental impacts.

[Dark Exodus]

Many activists do both. Why? Because the slaughter of whales is linked to the exploitation of human beings -- it is all a result of the same destructive system. I have nothing against environmentalists who are anti-capitalist. How can you say that our natural environment is "useless"?

Where did I say that?


With all due respect, this is 7th grade biology. I really don&#39;t have time to educate you on basic science.
The health of whales affects the health of oceans. The health of oceans affects man, because man depends on the ocean for sustenance.

To what extent will a few whales affect us all?


This statement makes no sense.


Originally posted by DEPAVER+--> (DEPAVER)If you carefully study anthropology, you&#39;ll find that successful human societies that existing for thousands of years did not hold this view.[/b]



Complacent? How do you know they were "complacent?"

Becuase they &#39;succeeded&#39; at living for so long that they were unable to deal with western invaders. A leftist society should develope and be able to cope with change or threats.


This is a non-sequitur.

I will attempt to clarify:

You could say that if we all lived like them then they would have been fine, but if we all lived like that then humanity would eventually die to an asteroid, or the death of our sun. Yet if we avoid stagnation, we have an infinitely better chance at avoiding extinction.


No one claimed the whale was an ecosystem. You brought up whales, which are just one element of an ecosystem.

Please re-read the whole topic, whales were one of the first things mentioned. I later tried to make a comparison between whales and dodos. I recieved this reply:


Eoin Dubh
The dodo was not an ecosystem.



I did not ask the question to which you are responding to (please don&#39;t mix responses to multiple people in a single post)

Well after several years in several places you are the only one to have complained.


technology requires resources from ecosystems. Therefore, your point is not valid.
Furthermore, The belief (and I realize you aren&#39;t totally depending on science and technology) that science and technology can provide solutions to our current environmental problems is not only flawed but a dangerous idea, in my opinion.
The conservation of mass principle and the second law of thermodynamics dictate that almost all remediation technologies cause unavoidable negative environmental impacts. And secondly, I don&#39;t see how it is possible to design industrial processes that have no negative environmental impacts.

How exactly do you propose we cut fossil fuel emissions (for example) without developing cleaner power sources?

[DEPAVER]

To what extent will a few whales affect us all?

Again, the loss of a specific number of whales has a specific effect on a specific ecosystem. The effect on the ecosystem depends on the number lost and how that loss affects other species in the immediate area. The loss in one ecosystem could theoretically affect neighboring ecosystems.

No one has stated that the loss of "a few whales" affects all humans or even non-humans in a significant manner.


Becuase they &#39;succeeded&#39; at living for so long that they were unable to deal with western invaders. A leftist society should develope and be able to cope with change or threats.

So, to deal with the threat of an unsustainable, mechanized society, you too become mechanized and unsustainable?


You could say that if we all lived like them then they would have been fine,

No, that is not what I said.


but if we all lived like that then humanity would eventually die to an asteroid, or the death of our sun.

why?


Yet if we avoid stagnation, we have an infinitely better chance at avoiding extinction.

Please provide an historical example or data to support this proposition.



How exactly do you propose we cut fossil fuel emissions (for example) without developing cleaner power sources?

There is no replacement for oil. My advice is for you to get a good bike and start driving a lot less. See my post on peak oil in this section.

[Dark Exodus]

Again, the loss of a specific number of whales has a specific effect on a specific ecosystem. The effect on the ecosystem depends on the number lost and how that loss affects other species in the immediate area. The loss in one ecosystem could theoretically affect neighboring ecosystems.

No one has stated that the loss of "a few whales" affects all humans or even non-humans in a significant manner.


Then don&#39;t kick up a fuss when someone says they don&#39;t care about them.


So, to deal with the threat of an unsustainable, mechanized society, you too become mechanized and unsustainable?

That it not what I am saying. We will likely never meet another society. Changing and developing to cope with threats does not instantly make a society unsustainable.


No, that is not what I said.

I never claimed you did:

"You could say"


why?

Because there would be no means to escape or stop such an event.


Please provide an historical example or data to support this proposition.

This is not possible since there has been nothing to threaten our existance yet, it has happened to other species who lived as part of the ecosystem in the past.


There is no replacement for oil. My advice is for you to get a good bike and start driving a lot less. See my post on peak oil in this section.

I live in the city, I don&#39;t need a car.

What about fusion power? We are on the verge of creating sustainable fusion reactors.
Most of the problems with alternative sources stem from capitalism and large oil companies.

[DEPAVER]

This discussion has developed in such a way that it&#39;s extremely difficult to follow, so this will most likely be my last response.


That it not what I am saying. We will likely never meet another society. Changing and developing to cope with threats does not instantly make a society unsustainable.

You suggested that pre-invasion societies (societies such as the Ohlone of the Pacific Plate) failed because they were "complacent." In other words, they didn&#39;t change. The only way for them to change (in order to meet the threat) would have been to become like the society they opposed, mechanized or industrialized. Industrial society, as we now know it, is not sustainable.

Furthermore, there are multiple societies on earth; therefore, it is possible to meet another society. I&#39;ve met several. Societies are simply human or non-human groupings defined by territory and distinctive cultural characteristics.


This is not possible since there has been nothing to threaten our existance yet, it has happened to other species who lived as part of the ecosystem in the past.

Global climate change may do just that.


What about fusion power? We are on the verge of creating sustainable fusion reactors.
Most of the problems with alternative sources stem from capitalism and large oil companies.

Fusion power reactors are not sustainable. Sustainable means that the society does not consume more natural resources than can be replenished by natural biological and geophysical cycles, and does not produce waste faster than can be dispersed by natural biological and geophysical cycles. The only way to create a sustainable society is to live within these limits

There&#39;s still no solution to waste dispersal, and I don&#39;t think we could make them safely. Furthermore, the world doesn&#39;t have enough qualified engineers and technicians trained in their construction to build enough reactors to meet energy demands. There&#39;s a pretty simple table developed by some engineers that show how many would need to be built in the United States to meet energy demand over the next twenty-five or so years. It&#39;s too expensive (&#036;5 to &#036;20 billion per plant) and simply cannot be done.

At this time, it seems the US might be able to build one a year.

[poster_child]

The problem isn&#39;t so much the fact that the whales are dying; the problem is WHY the whales are dying&#33; If whales are dying, then obviously there is something wrong, for example, with the water. That is water WE need to survive as well.

The earth is an ecosystem. We are all linked&#33; We spray pesticides, animals eat the bugs killed by the pesticides, we eat the animals, WE DIE&#33; It&#39;s that simple. Another example: we emitt millions of tonnes of air pollution, we breathe it in, we get lung cancer.


You fuck with the earth and the earth will fuck with you&#33;&#33;

[Dark Exodus]

You suggested that pre-invasion societies (societies such as the Ohlone of the Pacific Plate) failed because they were "complacent." In other words, they didn&#39;t change. The only way for them to change (in order to meet the threat) would have been to become like the society they opposed, mechanized or industrialized. Industrial society, as we now know it, is not sustainable.

Why do you believe that developement instantly makes something unsustainable? It is not mechanisation but capitalism and human greed that is destroying the planet.


Furthermore, there are multiple societies on earth; therefore, it is possible to meet another society. I&#39;ve met several. Societies are simply human or non-human groupings defined by territory and distinctive cultural characteristics.

I was assuming that the race was united, even so we would know about other human societies and we would be prepared.


Global climate change may do just that.

Asyou have said, a few whales aren&#39;t going to cause global climate change. I fail to see how this is relevant, I am not advocating destroying the environment, just placing humanity above it.

In the long term these concerns are the same but sailing to Japan to save some whales is not going to aid humanity as much as doing community work or helping impoverished people in third world countries.



Fusion power reactors are not sustainable.

My fault, I did not mean &#39;sustainable&#39; in the wider, environmental sense.


Sustainable means that the society does not consume more natural resources than can be replenished by natural biological and geophysical cycles, and does not produce waste faster than can be dispersed by natural biological and geophysical cycles. The only way to create a sustainable society is to live within these limits

How do you suggest we do this? We have come a way since the industrial revolution, industries -- even in capitalism -- are becoming more efficient and clean.


There&#39;s still no solution to waste dispersal, and I don&#39;t think we could make them safely. Furthermore, the world doesn&#39;t have enough qualified engineers and technicians trained in their construction to build enough reactors to meet energy demands. There&#39;s a pretty simple table developed by some engineers that show how many would need to be built in the United States to meet energy demand over the next twenty-five or so years. It&#39;s too expensive (&#036;5 to &#036;20 billion per plant) and simply cannot be done.

At this time, it seems the US might be able to build one a year.

Then the problem is again capitalism.

I feel I should mention that China can build them at a 15th of the cost, and they are planning their own designs.


You fuck with the earth and the earth will fuck with you&#33;&#33;

The earth (or the solar system) will fuck with us anyway, which factories caused the ice age?

I am simply suggesting we be ready when it does.

[Abood]

I support groups such as Greenpeace, etc.. i would consider myself as an environmentalist. It&#39;s all towards a better world...
and eventhough things like whales dont affect our society directly, it does affect it in the long run. Everything exists for a reason, other than being killed/destroyed for fun.
For example, food-chains... imagine a species get extinct, then its consumers would have less food to eat, so they would feed on other species, so those other species get endangered, and possibly extinct. The consumers of the whales also decrease in numbers, and this affects the number of food humans can get. and no, i am not a vegetarian.

Greenpeace also fights deforestation, and forests produce a huge amount of oxygen, and take in loads of carbon dioxide. carbon dioxide, by some people, is thought to be a pollutant, and it is poisonous in great amounts. Try to imagine the world without enough oxygen and loads of carbon dioxide.

[DEPAVER]

Quoting Dark Exodus,Jan 29 2006, 09:04 AM


Why do you believe that developement instantly makes something unsustainable? It is not mechanisation but capitalism and human greed that is destroying the planet.

That&#39;s not what I said. Industrialization, as we know it, (as it exists today) is not sustainable. Your point about capitalism is well made, but you have to understand that today&#39;s industrial model is built on infinite growth in a world of finite resources. That is completely and irrefutably non-sustainable.

Think about the military-industrial complex and how it works and what is required to make it function.


I am not advocating destroying the environment, just placing humanity above it.

That&#39;s fine. It&#39;s your belief, as I have my own belief. But I maintain my belief for several important reasons. Peaceful and egalitarian human societies that existed successfully for thousands of years, lived sustainably. A major and core part of their belief system was that man is equal to other animals, no greater, no less. He&#39;s just another predator in the system, but as a predator, he needs balance with other lifeforms to live.


How do you suggest we do this? We have come a way since the industrial revolution, industries -- even in capitalism -- are becoming more efficient and clean.

That&#39;s a good question.

I don&#39;t believe it is possible given the current human population and current level of industrialization. Peak Oil and global climate change will most likely affect human populations, and if to a significant degree, perhaps we can return to something like Edward Abbey&#39;s vision of free and semi-autonomous agrarian communities, living in harmony with natural cycles, based on local production for local consumption, democratic decision-making and mutual aid. Those who attempt to cling to the old competitive, divisive, oppressive ways will die. Cooperation will rule the day, as it did for thousands of years before.

Some degree of industrialization will most certainly be present, but keep in mind that with the limited availability of affordable oil, production will be highly limited.

The good news is you don&#39;t have to wait until shit hits the fan. You can start preparing and begin a new lifeway today. Live locally and sustainably by walking, cycling, supporting local, organic farming, building community gardens and by becoming democratically engaged in your community. Build cooperatives. Look at what&#39;s happening in Los Angeles of all places:

http://www.laecovillage.org/




Then the problem is again capitalism.

I feel I should mention that China can build them at a 15th of the cost, and they are planning their own designs.

Money is a problem, but you still have the problem with engineers and simple manpower. China can&#39;t produce enough reactors to meet its needs.

Capitalism isn&#39;t going to end any time soon in the U.S., so the reactor plan is not feasible.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Animals are capable of contributing to society, and a person with a mental disability can help our world, too. If this is true, what separates animals and humans from a communist perspective? It cannot be a soul, so another argument must be constructed.

To dismiss animals as inferior to humans is, in my opinion, entirely capitalist. Animals do not choose to be born animals, and a person with a disease does not choose their fate. A communist society encompasses all people because it recognises that individuals are victims of a cruel world.

Although it may be contradictory, I value a human life more than an animal life, but I think we should work towards a world where neither has to be sacrificed. The fact that many leftists have the ability to overcome the construction that "capitalism is great" is quite refreshing, but I find it disturbing that many fail to recognize the rights of all creatures.

[hemybel]

We are all here to do, what we are all here to do...

The results of our deeds is our judgement.

It&#39;s not what&#39;s inside us that matters, it&#39;s what we do...

I believe we all have our purpose... let&#39;s just hope that we found it... and it&#39;s not evil... it&#39;s not selfish...

[pedro san pedro]

while it is hard to say whether or not the extinction of the whale will have a direct effect upon humanity, fighting for it&#39;s protection is worthwhile on both other environmental and also economical issues.

anti-whaling campaigns are &#39;soft&#39; cmapaigns that are attractive to a broad cross-section of mainstream society. I wonder how many people have become greenpeace members because of greenpeace&#39;s whles campaigns and then found themselves exposed to a much wider range of environmental issues (greenpeace campaigns broadly over the areas of oceans, forests, climate, toxics, nukes and genetic engineering). to my mind, the more people that are exposed to these issues, the better.

whale watching as an alternative is already worth substanially msore than whaling and is sustainable. this industry is also one in which small businesses have the chance to play the game, meaning the profits are better spread around. sure, let&#39;s view the whales as a resource - but as a renewable one ;)



Animals are capable of contributing to society, and a person with a mental disability can help our world, too. If this is true, what separates animals and humans from a communist perspective? It cannot be a soul, so another argument must be constructed........

i really dislike the way that people claim to be greener than green envirnmentalists then choose to remove themselves from that environment. you are part of the natural cycle of predator / prey relationships. please don&#39;t be so arrogrant as to raise yourself above it&#33;&#33;

[Dark Exodus]

That&#39;s not what I said. Industrialization, as we know it, (as it exists today) is not sustainable. Your point about capitalism is well made, but you have to understand that today&#39;s industrial model is built on infinite growth in a world of finite resources. That is completely and irrefutably non-sustainable.

I am not advocating this model.



That&#39;s fine. It&#39;s your belief, as I have my own belief. But I maintain my belief for several important reasons. Peaceful and egalitarian human societies that existed successfully for thousands of years, lived sustainably. A major and core part of their belief system was that man is equal to other animals, no greater, no less. He&#39;s just another predator in the system, but as a predator, he needs balance with other lifeforms to live.

But surely the notion that we have to make an effort to balance, rather than it coming naturally like every other species sets us apart at least slightly?

I would not rate a single celled organism as high an ordinary animal.


I don&#39;t believe it is possible given the current human population and current level of industrialization. Peak Oil and global climate change will most likely affect human populations, and if to a significant degree, perhaps we can return to something like Edward Abbey&#39;s vision of free and semi-autonomous agrarian communities, living in harmony with natural cycles, based on local production for local consumption, democratic decision-making and mutual aid. Those who attempt to cling to the old competitive, divisive, oppressive ways will die. Cooperation will rule the day, as it did for thousands of years before.

Some degree of industrialization will most certainly be present, but keep in mind that with the limited availability of affordable oil, production will be highly limited.

Seems fair enough, but if these societies remain static then long term problems could emerge. The earth and the solar systems will not remain the same indefinitely and climate change can happen of its own accord.



Money is a problem, but you still have the problem with engineers and simple manpower. China can&#39;t produce enough reactors to meet its needs.


That depends on the amount of cooperation between countries and the progress that they make.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 30 2006, 11:06 AM

Animals are capable of contributing to society, and a person with a mental disability can help our world, too. If this is true, what separates animals and humans from a communist perspective? It cannot be a soul, so another argument must be constructed........

i really dislike the way that people claim to be greener than green envirnmentalists then choose to remove themselves from that environment. you are part of the natural cycle of predator / prey relationships. please don&#39;t be so arrogrant as to raise yourself above it&#33;&#33;
That&#39;s a strawman argument since I never claimed to be above the environment. The environment changes over time, and the concept of a predator/prey relationship must be removed to achieve communism because, in fact, it is the basis for capitalist philosophy by which the rich prey on the poor.

My entire argument was suggesting that you are placing yourself above the environment without cause. If humans and animals both contribute to society, they should be treated the same unless some other factor(s) makes them unequal.

[hemybel]

The Communist China is protecting the Panda. :)

http://www.wwfcapitanata.it/logo/panda.gif

[UltraLeftGerry]

Getting back to the nature of such environmental groups, they would jump into bed with any right winger that would endorse some element of their program. Say ethanol for example. The Green Party in Canada and other Green Parties are far more economically more to the right than you&#39;d normally think. They have no problem compromising with people we would NEVER compromise with.

[hemybel]

saving endangered animals is good.. for all of us.. for the future of our children... for the planet.


just be careful in donating some of your money to different environmental groups like that. there are corrupt people everywhere... power corrupts... man is weak. and i just thought that if man is weak, animals can help... if a certain society is kind to animals, they are much capable of being kind to people...

[Zak]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 27 2006, 02:11 PM
You could say that if we all lived like them then they would have been fine, but if we all lived like that then humanity would eventually die to an asteroid, or the death of our sun. Yet if we avoid stagnation, we have an infinitely better chance at avoiding extinction.
We have no technology now to prevent an asteroid from destroying us. A meteor the size of the planet Earth hit Jupiter not too long ago. Luckly Jupiter has served as a sortof stellar magnet for us to draw asteroids away. As for the sun burning out, this is such a distant event that I don&#39;t really see how you can take it into perspective. The univeres will eventualy stretch into nothing or collapase on itself, this is inevitable so no matter how technologicaly advanced we become we cannot counter it. To condem agricultural societies because they don&#39;t have away to stop the sun from burning out is a little ridiculous, becaus neither do the invaders who destroyed these societies, the invaders you are defending.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:33 PM
We have no technology now to prevent an asteroid from destroying us.

Yet.


As for the sun burning out, this is such a distant event that I don&#39;t really see how you can take it into perspective.

Its a little difficult not to, considering its effects on our planet.


The univeres will eventualy stretch into nothing or collapase on itself, this is inevitable so no matter how technologicaly advanced we become we cannot counter it.

And you know this how?


To condem agricultural societies because they don&#39;t have away to stop the sun from burning out is a little ridiculous, becaus neither do the invaders who destroyed these societies, the invaders you are defending.

These societies will never advance, the &#39;invaders&#39; will up to a certain point.

Clearly you were not gifted with foresight, it is easy to see that a society that prises advance and change will develope faster and further than one that does not.

No way of living will give us such technology instantly, but it has a much better chance of being developed if such developement is encouraged.

[fernando]

Well groups like Greenpeace and WWF...in my opinion they are a bunch of fakers (I wanted to say ****s...but the PC gestapo might get me for that)..."oh we want to protect the animals boohooboo...GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY&#33;&#33;&#33;" Dutch Royalty is with the WWF..."protecting the poor defenless animals"...yup and at the same time they walk around in the forests with shotguns shooting at animals. Note that they have very shitty aim which basicly means they shoot the animal while not killing it at once and then just let it out there to die a slow and painful death&#33; woohoo these are your WWF people...fuck that why give money so one fat monarch who hunt animals with crappy aim can get some expensive award because he did a safari tour in Africa.

Perhaps instead of trying to attack Japanese boats (I dont mind it though...always amused to piss off big Japanese fishing companies) for hunting whales you try to come up with a breeding program for that endangered animal? And please..quit it with those commercial that go like "oh look some ice caps are melting...WE&#39;RE ALL GOING TO DIE DIE DIE AND DROWN IF YOU DONT GIVE US MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY&#33;&#33;&#33;" capitalist pigs...

[barret]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 10:27 AM
Well groups like Greenpeace and WWF...in my opinion they are a bunch of fakers (I wanted to say ****s...but the PC gestapo might get me for that)..."oh we want to protect the animals boohooboo...GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY&#33;&#33;&#33;" Dutch Royalty is with the WWF..."protecting the poor defenless animals"...yup and at the same time they walk around in the forests with shotguns shooting at animals. Note that they have very shitty aim which basicly means they shoot the animal while not killing it at once and then just let it out there to die a slow and painful death&#33; woohoo these are your WWF people...fuck that why give money so one fat monarch who hunt animals with crappy aim can get some expensive award because he did a safari tour in Africa.

Perhaps instead of trying to attack Japanese boats (I dont mind it though...always amused to piss off big Japanese fishing companies) for hunting whales you try to come up with a breeding program for that endangered animal? And please..quit it with those commercial that go like "oh look some ice caps are melting...WE&#39;RE ALL GOING TO DIE DIE DIE AND DROWN IF YOU DONT GIVE US MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY&#33;&#33;&#33;" capitalist pigs...
I can agree with you for the most part that a lot of their stuff is hype, but they do have some really important points. Of course, if your so worried about economics, you probably won&#39;t be all too concerned about the environment, but I think one of the most important issues that they help keep in check is sustainability. With out bio diversity and environmental regualtions, which they fight for, massive problems would occur to humans throughout the planet. From agricultural problems to radioactivity in our neighborhoods. It might not be all that important to save a bunch of wild Lions as it is to protect a large group of people, which would explain why I believe they serve a significant purpose in politics.

[Commie Rat]

Nail in the coffin is that if all these groups channelled their energy and resources into communism then they would destroy the socio-industrial system that perpertrates these atrocites

nip the problem at the bud

[pedro san pedro]

bollocks they would. greenpeace is comprised of around 1000 people globally. thats not enough to change our entire economic system

[Commie Rat]

true true.

A 1000 more people helps though.

:rolleyes: