Direct Action Environment groups

[welshred]

Hi I was just wondering what everyone thought of environmental groups such as Earth First! and The Earth Liberation Front.

[RedLenin]

I think they are reactionary, and in many cases misanthropic, movements that seek to acheive their goals through the failed tactic of individual terrorism. The problem with these movements/organizations is that they are going after a symptom of capitalism, but they are not focused on the actual disease. The environmental crisis is a prime concern and it will require specific focus. However, in order to even begin to address the problem, the disease that causes it, capitalism, must be abolished. These groups are not revolutionary and do not seek to end capitalism, hence, they are ineffective in the long run.

[Jazzratt]

I'm not a huge fan of biocentrism or biocentric organisations, they tend to be (as RL pointed out) misanthropists to the core. I know a lot of the kind of people that support them and some of the stuff they say is really disturbing. A lot of these organistaions take actions that harm workers and a lot of the membership would definatley think nothing of, or even celebrate a large number of deaths in their own species. I believe there was a thread on some action by EF! , which I could dig up, that covered a lot of the main problems we have with these organisations.

[Sentinel]

RedLenin is basically correct -- these groups are incapable of seeing that capitalism is the cause of malicious exploitation of the environment, and that as long as it prevails there is no chance make that end. Fighting the symptoms of capitalism won't make them go away, fighting capitalism itself will.

Just the name 'Earth Liberation Front' in itself is ridiculous and reeks of misanthropy.

While it lies in the interest of the human species to lead a sustainable existence here on earth for our own sake, we also have to maintain a progressing society to make it possible for the increasing human population or even the currently existing one, to live enjoyable lives or even survive in the first place. To achieve that, our influence over the environment has to increase, not decrease.

We must learn to manage and control the planet and it's resources rationally. The 'natural environment', which the 'ELF' fights to preserve, is no rose garden, it's actually a very dangerous and hostile place to live. We need a hightech, rationally planned and managed society, ie a communist one, to mold the environment to be maximally beneficial to us. Which of course also means that it'll keep it safe from destruction..

[Fawkes]

I used to fully support these types of groups and their actions, (I even used to think that meat should be illegalized). I than realized though that, like the three posters before me stated, these groups fight only the results of the current problem as opposed to fighting the problem itself, capitalism. I see their actions as being similar to those actions taken by groups that fight immigrants because they believe that they take their jobs as opposed to fighting things like NAFTA which make the immigrants want to come to "their" country. Nothing will be achieved if humans continue to fight the by-products of the current system. Problems will just continue to occur until the actual problem causer (capitalism) is destroyed.

[chimx]

I used to work with Earth First!

Almost all of them were staunch anti-capitalists and self-affirmed anarchists or at the very least, ambiguous leftists. They all held that the deforestation occuring in our back yards was a byproduct of capitalist interests undermining community direction over our ecosystem. Government bureaucracy in Washington made deals with lumber companys to make money, while us here in Montana were left with a harmed eco system.

That said, unlike the bulk of this forum's population, EF! is not blindly utopic. They work to create obtainable goals in the short term, and in doing so, try to garner public support. When we worked with the press, we would not talk about capitalism being the root cause of the ecological destruction of our forests, but instead presented a picture that would marginalize us significantly less.

There seems to be a common mantra on this website that is reiterated over and over again: lets not worry about that, lets focus on overthrowing capitalism.

That may be a fine way for you to justify your own inactivity, but that doesn't present me with an attainable solution for me in my life time. I don't want the mountains that I live on to be bare, I don't want the wildlife to be dead, I don't want to see my ecosystem destroyed, simply because I thought it best to repeat the revleft manta: "don't act, wait out capitalism instead."

edit add: Actually WREF! did touch on capitalist issues occasionally. Here is a news article I posted to an IMC about our activities years ago. LINKK (http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2929/index.php). Note the banner we dropped from the log truck we locked down to: "Global Capitalism Kills Our Forest". I'll try to find some pictures when I get back from the library--if I still have any.

[Fawkes]

I don't think many people here actually say "let's not worry about that", most of us would certainly not be against environmental reforms, we seek reforms yet at the same time fight the true root of the problem. I can't speak for everybody else but, though I see overthrowing capitalism as the obvious ultimate goal, reforms are definitely a good thing for the short term. I think it's similar to anarchists or communists fighting for an increased minimum wage, though it doesn't destroy capitalism, it certainly helps in the short term. I agree with what you are saying in that we should seek short term reforms, yet not forget about the long term ones. In my first post, I was speaking more about ELF than EF!, because I don't know to much about EF!. However, as far as I know, I've never seen ELF or ALF take any actions against capitalism itself, which is the reason I don't really like them. However, groups like EF! that work for reform and revolution are okay in my book.

[benjaminbarker]

The groups are not neccessarily misanthropic, they are just less blatantly anthrocentric as most other groups. Humans are not the only living beings on this planet. We are destroying it for our own ends which could be achieved through much more efficient means. The members of environmental groups know this, and the more informed of them know that much of the problem, the lack of will to change, is caused by the capitalists. They have every reason to despise capitalism, as do we. Any revolution would not be complete without an environmental activist platform.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:42 am
The groups are not neccessarily misanthropic, they are just less blatantly anthrocentric as most other groups.
They go a step further, they are biocentric, they hold the Earth above their own kind - they are scum.


Humans are not the only living beings on this planet. We're the only ones humans need worry about (unless we're talking organisms essential to our survival).
We are destroying it for our own ends which could be achieved through much more efficient means. Who is this "we"? Capitalism is destroying the environment you deluded nut not humanity.
The members of environmental groups know this, and the more informed of them know that much of the problem, the lack of will to change, is caused by the capitalists. They have every reason to despise capitalism, as do we. Any revolution would not be complete without an environmental activist platform. Is that all they think capitalism is responsible for, as regards the environment? They do not 'despise' capitalism in the same way we (that is communists) do, they have no concept of class or emancipation for their fellow man. As for your final statement: :lol: The Russians, Chinese, Cubans and so on managed fine without, doubtless we'll manage it again.

If you don't dig anthropcentrism you don't belong on the left.

[apathy maybe]

Personally I don't find such groups reactionary. I support the aim of fucking up capitalists who fuck up the environment.

I am most definitely not anthropocentric, and I am disturbed by those who are.


I think also think to blame capitalism for environmental problems is only one part of it. Humans have been fucking up the environment for thousands of years. Look at Greece or Scotland, both had shit loads of forests, converted to ships to fight wars (Greece a couple of thousand or more years ago, Scotland more recently).

Or we could look at the Sahara Desert, the largest desert on an inhabited continent and getting bigger every year. The reason for this desert? People, people farming, people cutting down trees and so on. The trouble is, once you got a place like that, you can't easily turn it back into arable land again.


Or we could examine species extinction, lets have a look at The Future Eaters by Tim Flannery. Tim by the way is Australian of the Year for 2007. In this book he describes how in a variety of places, humans moved in, and wiped out the large fauna in the area. New Zealand being an example that cannot be disputed, but Australia, Europe and North America also lost most if not all of the large fauna.

Talking about Europe, this continent is the one with the least actual non-managed natural environment left, that didn't happen in just a couple of hundred years.


So yes, it is "humanity" destroying the environment, to argue otherwise is to ignore the facts of human history and human interaction with the natural environment.

[ichneumon]

They go a step further, they are biocentric, they hold the Earth above their own kind - they are scum.

as if humanity and the rest of the biosphere are somehow in competition, or, for that matter, that humanity could exist without the biosphere/gaia


We're the only ones humans need worry about (unless we're talking organisms essential to our survival).

the earth is essential for our survival. you seem to want humans to live into metal cans in orbit, with synthetic food and chemically produced oxygen. one, that's insane and inefficient and two, over my dead body. the earth will not die in order to spawn that kind of aberration. if you want to copy your brain into a computer and fling yourself into the wild black yonder, go ahead - we here on earth have evolution to accomplish.


Who is this "we"? Capitalism is destroying the environment you deluded nut not humanity.

so far as i know, all capitalists are humans, and communist humans are just as bad for the environment as other types.


If you don't dig anthropcentrism you don't belong on the left.

if you don't understand "don't shit where you eat" you don't belong in the human race.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:13 pm

They go a step further, they are biocentric, they hold the Earth above their own kind - they are scum.

as if humanity and the rest of the biosphere are somehow in competition, or, for that matter, that humanity could exist without the biosphere/gaia
A) I'm not the one positing this view, they are - they are the ones taking actions against humans.

B)I can't take you seriously at all because you use the word 'gaia', a term loaded with mysticism.



We're the only ones humans need worry about (unless we're talking organisms essential to our survival).

the earth is essential for our survival. you seem to want humans to live into metal cans in orbit, with synthetic food and chemically produced oxygen. If that is, ultimatley, what is good for humanity then so be it.
one, that's insane and inefficient and two, over my dead body. One. Your opinion is incosequential. Two. Added bonus.
the earth will not die in order to spawn that kind of aberration. if you want to copy your brain into a computer and fling yourself into the wild black yonder, go ahead - we here on earth have evolution to accomplish. You can cram that 'copy your brain' strawman up your arse and blow it out you nose, ****casket. I know full well we don't have that kind of technology yet. We have reached the stage where we should be guiding our own evolution.



Who is this "we"? Capitalism is destroying the environment you deluded nut not humanity.

so far as i know, all capitalists are humans, and communist humans are just as bad for the environment as other types. What the fuck are you babbling about, do you not understand that it is the system under which humans are being forced to operate that is causing these problems? I fucking wish sentinel were here, he doesn't stand for this kind of crap.



If you don't dig anthropcentrism you don't belong on the left.

if you don't understand "don't shit where you eat" you don't belong in the human race. Poor analogy. Piss off you stupid little twat.

[ichneumon]

"gaia" has a specific meaning in ecological science, whether you are aware of that or not.


If that is, ultimatley, what is good for humanity then so be it.

imagine a child who has never seen the sun rise over the ocean, never smelled a flower, never chased a butterfly or eaten a wild blackberry. humans are conditioned by millions of years of evolution to live, here, on earth within the biosphere. you can't erase or undo that. we are a product of our environment, and that environment is gaia.


We have reached the stage where we should be guiding our own evolution.


into what? what will man(un)kind become in your vision?

imagine if there were a book that contained all the information and blueprints needed to build every machine or artifact ever produced by the human race, and that there is only one copy of that book. now, see, i'm really cold, and i'm going to use that book for a nice comfy fire. that's how i feel about your ideas towards the earth.

life on earth is an almost irreducibly complex machine/system that makes more life possible. it makes *human* life possible. to destroy that is wasteful beyond imagination. insane.

i support techonological advancement to the fullest. but life on earth is our best resource. in no way are we capable of substituting our machinery for the functions that the biosphere provides. understanding the system of energy flow in a developed ecosystem is the best chance we have of modelling a sustainable human economy. one day we will have the science to tailor the planetary ecosystem, but right now we're just ripping it apart and accomplishing little.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+--> (Jazzratt)I fucking wish sentinel were here, he doesn't stand for this kind of crap.[/b]

I'm at work atm, with limited time at the computer.. While at sea I do check this forum daily to see if mod actions are needed, but I don't have the time and energy which is required when you get involved in more indepth and/or heated debates.. But I'll be back home on wednesday. I'm going to jump on the trend and put you in my sig right now though. :wub:

But let's see here..


Ichneumon
understanding the system of energy flow in a developed ecosystem is the best chance we have of modelling a sustainable human economy.

Care to elaborate on this point a little, it sounds interesting. :rolleyes:


imagine a child who has never seen the sun rise over the ocean, never smelled a flower, never chased a butterfly or eaten a wild blackberry. humans are conditioned by millions of years of evolution to live, here, on earth within the biosphere. you can't erase or undo that. we are a product of our environment, and that environment is gaia.

Two words: virtual reality. I do however seriously doubt that anything of that would ever become impossible in real life, in some kind of sheltered areas and parks if not otherwise. Also, in the future we will be able to re-create any aspects of the nature that we have damaged in the lower phases of development we are living now. If we think we think we could have some use for them, be it practical or aesthetic.


one day we will have the science to tailor the planetary ecosystem, but right now we're just ripping it apart and accomplishing little.

Which is, oddly, exactly what we communists of the transhumanist variety are arguing. The difference is that we understand that it's something called the capitalist system and not 'alienation from nature' or anything even remotely along those lines, which is the main culprit standing between us and our well being and sustainability.

Ichneumon, if you truly have as positive feelings about technology as you claim, why do you then feel the need to slander it constantly and strawman us with all the stereotypical, ridiculous assumptions people have about transhumanism?

See we are accomplishing little, as you say, because our economic model has become an obstacle for progress! A technocratic-communist world revolution would inevitably spark off an explosion of advancement in science and technology.

But that's not all there is to it -- as technological progress increasingly deepens the rift between the classes in capitalism, it'll most likely be a major factor in sparking off the first world revolution in the first place.

Our fate is intertwined with that of our technology -- the more power and control over our lives we have achieved through it, the more dependant of it we have become. And that is the correct path, the only one. The choice is between being either on the mercy of the environment, or technology. And it's no hard choice if you ask me.

Mankind will act in accordance with it's interests, and eventually acquire unlimited power by becoming one with technology. All attempts to hinder this development are doomed to be as futile as the attempts by the royalty to cling to the rests of their feudal power were, and the ones by the capitalists to fight the communist revolution will be.

The wheels of history roll in one direction.


into what? what will man(un)kind become in your vision?

To put it simply, an independent actor. Free of any limitations set by the environment and instead one with the technology we have created. I don't know about you but if I'd rather be dependant of something I have control over, than something I don't.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:29 pm
imagine if there were a book that contained all the information and blueprints needed to build every machine or artifact ever produced by the human race, and that there is only one copy of that book. now, see, i'm really cold, and i'm going to use that book for a nice comfy fire. that's how i feel about your ideas towards the earth.
Then you've got my dieas wrong. To continue your analogy, imagine you were freezing to death - would you remove the pages that told you how to make machines that are now obsolete and set those on fire?


life on earth is an almost irreducibly complex machine/system that makes more life possible. it makes *human* life possible. to destroy that is wasteful beyond imagination. insane. Which is why I'm not saying destroy the earth, that would run contrary to being anthropocentric - after all, how can you be centered on humans if there are no humans?

[Vanguard1917]

The epoch of capitalism has made the world more suitable for human inhabitation compared to previous historical epochs, and the epoch of socialism - by smashing the fetters which restrain the development of the productive forces under capitalism - will make it even more so.

Contary to Green irrationalism and mythology, the earth has never before been in better shape - from a human perspective - than it is today. The fact that 6 billion+ human beings are living longer, healthier and safer lives than ever before is itself proof of this simple fact.

[YSR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:20 pm
Contary to Green irrationalism and mythology, the earth has never before been in better shape - from a human perspective - than it is today.
You just keep getting funnier.

Why is this forum even called "Science and Environment"? It's better known as "Science and fuck the environment".

[benjaminbarker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:44 pm


If you don't dig anthropcentrism you don't belong on the left.
You don't know what you are talking about. Have you seen the right? Can you honestly say that they are not anthropcentric? If I don't "dig" anthropcentrism, I guess I don't belong anywhere. But I certainly wouldn't want to belong to a group of people claiming to be left wing while spouting the same bullshit I hear day in and day out from all the reactionaries surrounding me. Think man, before you speak. Or is that too hard for you?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by benjaminbarker+February 04, 2007 06:26 am--> (benjaminbarker @ February 04, 2007 06:26 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 11:44 pm


If you don't dig anthropcentrism you don't belong on the left.
You don't know what you are talking about. Have you seen the right? Can you honestly say that they are not anthropcentric? If I don't "dig" anthropcentrism, I guess I don't belong anywhere. But I certainly wouldn't want to belong to a group of people claiming to be left wing while spouting the same bullshit I hear day in and day out from all the reactionaries surrounding me. Think man, before you speak. Or is that too hard for you? [/b]
I think you're the one that needs to be doing some thinking here. The right - far from being 'anthropcentric' - takes an anti-humanist ideological position. Rather than being human-centred, rightwing perspectives place non-human entities at the centre of their ideological perspectives. Putting profit before people is an example of this. Calling for a God-centred perspective (i.e. religion) is another example.

That's why Greens have more in common with traditional rightwing politics than they do with traditional leftwing politics. Political perspectives not centred around humanity were traditionally considered rightwing.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by benjaminbarker+February 04, 2007 06:26 am--> (benjaminbarker @ February 04, 2007 06:26 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 11:44 pm


If you don't dig anthropcentrism you don't belong on the left.
You don't know what you are talking about. [/b]
Yes. I do. Whether you have any idea what your fingers are doing to the keyboard whilst you make this travesty of a post remains to be seen.


Have you seen the right? Can you honestly say that they are not anthropcentric? That is inconsequential, to say the least. We can't just decide that something is bad because the right does it, that's fallacious thinking. Also, as Vanguard1917 pointed out they tend to hold non-human entities above humans, but I'd also like to point out that most of them are insufferable bioconservatives - it's the greens and the right that hate genetic modification.
If I don't "dig" anthropcentrism, I guess I don't belong anywhere. You could try post-leftism, I hear they have a raging hard-on for misanthropes and biocenterists like you.
But I certainly wouldn't want to belong to a group of people claiming to be left wing while spouting the same bullshit I hear day in and day out from all the reactionaries surrounding me. Wait, so my convictions on this subject make me reactionary - simply for the reason they are espoused by reactionaries? What kind of bullshit is this? Himmler used to dress as a woman - does that mean that if I choose to dress as a woman I become a nazi? WHy are you so vehemently anti-human anyway? If you don't like your own fucking species I suggest you leave it as swiftly as possible - preferably by dying.
Think man, before you speak. I do, although it would appear you are following the example - please don't tell me you actually thought about your post, I could do myself an injury rollingon the floor laughing.
Or is that too hard for you? Evidently you find it quite the challenge.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 04, 2007 05:37 am
Why is this forum even called "Science and Environment"? It's better known as "Science and fuck the environment".
Better known amongst whom?

[chimx]

Which is, oddly, exactly what we communists of the transhumanist variety are arguing. The difference is that we understand that it's something called the capitalist system and not 'alienation from nature' or anything even remotely along those lines, which is the main culprit standing between us and our well being and sustainability.

I your goal is sustainability, than I doubt you will get a lot of criticism from environmentalists (unless you try the absurd argument that you don't need forests if you have virtual reality).

But you are making ecology sound as if it can be reduced to elementary arithmetic. The ecological connections between different species and their environment is certainly more complicated than you are letting on. More often than not ecologists discover the error of prior environmental policies after the fact.

For example, who would have thought that logging practices such as cable logging would cause sediment run out, which would get into streams, harm trout eggs, resulting in fish depletion in rivers, resulting in a decrease in the populations of predators that eat fish as their primary source of meat, etc. etc?

Hindsight is 20/20, but if you move forward to fast to see it, than what's the point?

Its not that I disagree with technocrats and transhumanists on some of their goals, I just don't trust y'all to get their safely and sustainably given the tendency to see the (virtual) tree, missing the (virtual) forest.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)I your goal is sustainability, than I doubt you will get a lot of criticism from environmentalists (unless you try the absurd argument that you don't need forests if you have virtual reality).[/b]

I have always emphasised that environmental sustainability is crucial as it lies in the interests of humanity, in order to survive as a species. The virtual reality comment was to point out that different sensorial experiences (like strolling on a field, picking flowers and chasing butterflies, important to comrade ichneumon) can be achieved with it, not that it can replace vital parts of the environment..

In order ot actually achieve sustainability, our goals must be 1.) the overthrow of capitalism, 2.) the advancement of technology on all fields. There are no other realistic options, really.


Its not that I disagree with technocrats and transhumanists on some of their goals, I just don't trust y'all to get their safely and sustainably given the tendency to see the (virtual) tree, missing the (virtual) forest.

There is no such tendency; there is only determination and an ability to set priorities in struggle.


Jazzratt
Better known amongst whom?

Amongst people who prioritise the preservation of the environment in it's current state before the wellbeing of human beings, people who see 'Nature' as an unviolatable entity with a value in itself, instead of in relation with human needs. Young stupid radicals, mostly. :D

[chimx]

2.) the advancement of technology on all fields.

This may sound comically simple, but define "advancement".

[ichneumon]

Our fate is intertwined with that of our technology -- the more power and control over our lives we have achieved through it, the more dependant of it we have become. And that is the correct path, the only one. The choice is between being either on the mercy of the environment, or technology. And it's no hard choice if you ask me.

Mankind will act in accordance with it's interests, and eventually acquire unlimited power by becoming one with technology. All attempts to hinder this development are doomed to be as futile as the attempts by the royalty to cling to the rests of their feudal power were, and the ones by the capitalists to fight the communist revolution will be.

The wheels of history roll in one direction.

i've always been a transhumanist.

our key difference here is what we consider technology. you think of fusion powerplants, i think of recombinant algae. the industrial revolution is *over*. biotechnology doesn't build from the ground up - we don't even faintly know how to do that. we use the beautiful perfect machines that exist in great profusion all around us. each one has ecological, cellular and biochemical processes that are unique and irreplaceable.

humanity will never conquer the environment. would a fish declare war on the sea? we will integrate with it. one day "artificial" and "natural" will be nonsensical concepts.


In order ot actually achieve sustainability, our goals must be 1.) the overthrow of capitalism, 2.) the advancement of technology on all fields. There are no other realistic options, really.

i would say "ending" rather than "overthrowing", and reverse the priorities, but in this we basically agree.

as to ecology->economic science, this is generally true. the models that ecologist develop to describe complex systems increasingly resemble those on the cutting edge of economics. the "eco-" prefix is not a coincidence - we both describe the world around us. no offense, but marxist theory could use some serious quantification, and this is were it's going to come from.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)This may sound comically simple, but define "advancement".[/b]

I'm convinced that to the degree technology in itself can be blamed for environmental damage is due to a too low tech level. If you want an example there's always the energy issue:

We are still dependent of polluting organic fuels like oil, and have yet to master nuclear fusion technology which is the much less risky version of our current nuclear power. While nuclear fission reactors create heaps of waste which remains dangerous for millenia, in a fission plant only the reactor core would be heavily radioactive, and that for merely fifty years or so.

Luckily, progress is being made constantly in the research and even though it'll still take some time, there is actual, realistic hope of this perfect energy source becoming reality in a not all too distant future. :)


ichneumon
our key difference here is what we consider technology. you think of fusion powerplants, i think of recombinant algae. the industrial revolution is *over*. biotechnology doesn't build from the ground up - we don't even faintly know how to do that. we use the beautiful perfect machines that exist in great profusion all around us. each one has ecological, cellular and biochemical processes that are unique and irreplaceable.

In the future we'll fully master biotechnology, just like everything else. What was known as the 'industrial revolution' may be over, but our understanding of the world will continue to grow with accelarating speed. And once when we get to have a real impact on our own intelligence, no obstacle can or will stand for us. All this might take time, but the overthrow (and thus ending, what's the difference? Because obviously capitalism will have to be violently overthrown..) of capitalism globally is going to buy us time -- with the eneormous overproduction and waste of resources characteristic to that system gone.


humanity will never conquer the environment. would a fish declare war on the sea? we will integrate with it. one day "artificial" and "natural" will be nonsensical concepts.

Well I'm convinced it will be the other way around -- but I agree with your vision of the end result. Anyways, nice to see we aren't as diametrically opposed to each other as I though, Ichneumon.

[chimx]

I'm convinced that...

I agree. It isn't profitable to make adjustments to new technology when one is invested so heavily in the old. I would love to have nearly clean energy, and all the other great things that are no doubt bonking around in your brain.

but my concern isn't going to B from A. It is the trip there and at what cost will the process take? How much mining, deforestation, unclean fuel usage, and labor division will it take to produce the technology within this process? I'm not arguing for abolition of these things, just that they need to be taken into account as a final expense of the end result.

I also like hanging out in the woods sometimes and don't want to use virtual reality. Call it an anti-technocrat bias, or whatever, I'm Montanan.

[ichneumon]

virtual flowers for virtual children - honestly, do androids dream of electric sheep?

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:01 pm
virtual flowers for virtual children - honestly, do androids dream of electric sheep?
I'm reading that book and judging from the introduction the future world would be excellent.

And what's wrong with virtual flowers? Seriously. Don't just use dismissive one-liners. Tell me why virtual flowers are somehow "less whole" or "less real" than physical flowers.

[Sentinel]

but my concern isn't going to B from A. It is the trip there and at what cost will the process take? How much mining, deforestation, unclean fuel usage, and labor division will it take to produce the technology within this process? I'm not arguing for abolition of these things, just that they need to be taken into account as a final expense of the end result.

I've never said we shouldn't consider all possible risk factors, or that anything shouldn't be 'taken into account'. On the contrary, careful planning is crucial. I do however, once again, think that overthrowing capitalism (a system that isn't into careful planning, but into acquiring maximal economic profits fast) would buy us the time needed to develop fully sustainable technology without having to take any steps backwards.

If you aren't arguing for that sort of thing, ie regression, I can't really see what we are arguing about.


I also like hanging out in the woods sometimes and don't want to use virtual reality. Call it an anti-technocrat bias, or whatever, I'm Montanan.

RevMARKsman put it quite well in response to ichneumon. Perhaps you could answer as well though: if we could create an exact replica of your woods in VR, what would be the the difference? If you couldn't even notice? :huh:

[ichneumon]

And what's wrong with virtual flowers? Seriously. Don't just use dismissive one-liners. Tell me why virtual flowers are somehow "less whole" or "less real" than physical flowers.

that "flower" is massively complex and powerful biological machine. human technology couldn't even begin to reproduce it. even if we sequence it completely, we still would have little idea of how the genes work and the biochemical path ways. consider the difference between, say, aspirin, a simple chemical compound you could draw on a page, and insulin, which is 4 orders of magnitude more complex. we have made jury-rigged bacteria that make insulin, but we can't make it in the lab. not even close.

if an alien space craft crashed on earth, totally beyond our ability to understand, would it be okay to cut it up for scrap metal and replace it with a fiberglass shell? who would know the difference?

the flower is ALIVE. it has millions of years of genetic information that allows it to respond in unique ways to its environment. it also has the ability to create, enzymatically, unique biochemicals that CANNOT be made synthetically. most of our drugs come from plants. many of the new ones can't be made synthetically - they are just too complex to be assembled by standard chemistry.

if you could make a virtual flower that actually mimicked a real flower on a molecular and genetic level, how would that be more efficient than just growing a real one? it'd be *useful*, but it wouldn't be a flower. given that direct neural input is a long ways a way, there's no simulation that will do.

[apathy maybe]

Reminds me of a short story I once read (SF (science fiction rather the science fantasy) of course). A person worried about that the world they were living in was a construct goes to the local park, where they find that even the flowers are mechanical. The end of the story is that the person is not even flesh and blood, but also mechanical.

Which leads me to another though (even more off topic then the above, perhaps I should start a new thread), does anyone still believe in the Cartesian idea of animals being mechanical beings and that only humans have consciousness?

And back slightly on to topic (or what ever is passing as the topic now). Matrix or any of the other shit loads of material written on the subject of VR?

Finally back properly onto topic? I think that certain technology is inherently 'bad' (this includes nuclear fission as practised, a 19th century technology (boiling water)). I also think that technology can be used to both, up our living standards and prevent destruction of the environment as can be often seen in poorer parts of the world.