Earth Liberation Front

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Whose down wit the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) they're a eco-direct action group what are your thoughts

[bcbm]

I think some of their actions are good, but in general they don't accomplish much and their motives are pretty lame. They just want to reform capital through direct action, not tear it down.

[Palmares]

Does anyone know much about how they were infiltrated by that FBI agent? What happened to those who got busted etc?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:23 am
Does anyone know much about how they were infiltrated by that FBI agent? What happened to those who got busted etc?
"They" can't be infiltrated, because there is no "they." The ELF is made up (if you can call it that) of entirely decentralized, autonomous cells. Its really more of a banner under which to claim actions than an actual organization, and actually claiming actions under that name makes it worse for those who get arrested. The recent arrests you're referring to are two different cases. In one case, an FBI agent provocateur set-up some folks by planning a bomb plot with them... basic entrapment. They're all looking at some hard time, I think. Can't recall if any of them snitched. The other case, some junkie fuck looking for some bucks offered to wear a wire and go reminisce with his old buddies about their direct action days, resulting in a number of arrests, some more snitching (fuck them) and some serious charges being handed out. You can click the "Green Scare" link in my signature for more info on all of the cases.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 14, 2007 12:39 am
"They" can't be infiltrated, because there is no "they." The ELF is made up (if you can call it that) of entirely decentralized, autonomous cells. Its really more of a banner under which to claim actions than an actual organization, and actually claiming actions under that name makes it worse for those who get arrested.
I stand corrected. I worded it badly.

Thanks for the link!

Some people I know said they met the FBI agent...

[bcbm]

Yeah, I guess she was a pretty good infiltrator. I've heard of people having slept with her at different anarcho-meetups. Hope somebody figures out her real info someday soon, so we can say hi.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 14, 2007 12:57 am
I've heard of people having slept with her at different anarcho-meetups.
Wow. She went very deep...

[Dimentio]

They are basically crazy. Their social analysis is very primitive, since they see all modern technology and infrastructure as "evil". There are many new age idealists, hippies and some wise people amongst them.

They are the polar opposite to us technocrats.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:42 am
They are the polar opposite to us technocrats.
Who can be equally as dogmatic and counter-productive. Primitivists and technocrats are two faces of the same dogmatism to me.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 13, 2007 01:23 pm
I think some of their actions are good, but in general they don't accomplish much and their motives are pretty lame. They just want to reform capital through direct action, not tear it down.
oh really? I heard somewhere they were straight up anarchists

[Dimentio]

Uh? In what way is technocracy dogmatic?

I agree that orthodox technocracy of the US variety could be dogmatic (Skip Sievert-style).

But for example NET, is not a very dogmatic movement per se.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Serpent - Emphasis mine
They are basically crazy. Their social analysis is very primitive, since they see all modern technology and infrastructure as "evil". There are many new age idealists, hippies and some wise people amongst them.

Are you entirely sure about that? :blink: Otherwise, quoted for truth.

The ELF memeplex is entirely flawed. While I don't agree with grassing them up purely on the grounds that doing so benefits the ruling class, I am strongly opposed to their anti-human ideology, and view the majority of their actions with distaste.

[apathy maybe]

The ELF organisational structure (rather lack there of...) is an interesting experiment in anti-infiltration tactics. Each action creates a temporary autonomous zone.

While I don't think that the ELF can accomplish much, I refuse to condemn their methods because I think that they are actually hitting back against capitalism.

More later...

[welshred]

What about Earth First! ?

[Vanguard1917]

Worse than fascists.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Vanguard, come on, that is too much.

Seriously mate, I know you hate everything green, but that is really, really going too far.

-Alex

[Vanguard1917]

Few insights from Earth First (the organisation whose members went on to form the Earth Liberation Front)...

They support malaria:

"Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere."

They support AIDS:

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS… the possible benefits of this to the environment are staggering… just as the Plague contributed to the demise of feudalism, AIDS has the potential to end industrialism."

They're apologists for famine in Ethiopia:

"An individual human life has no more intrinsic value than does an individual Grizzly Bear life. Human suffering resulting from drought and famine in Ethiopia is tragic, yes, but the destruction there of other creatures and habitat is even more tragic."

Why? Because:

"We humans have become a disease -- the Humanpox."

They make Hitler look fairly moderate.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

"Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere."

Okay, it's obviously a disgusting viewpoint, but you are misleading here. They aren't supporting it, anymore than anything else that's living. They support everything alive, including diseases etc.


"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS… the possible benefits of this to the environment are staggering… just as the Plague contributed to the demise of feudalism, AIDS has the potential to end industrialism."

It's an absolute hypothetical. Again it's a disgusting thing to even contemplate, but they aren't supporting it, they are talking about it's possible benefits were it to happen.

The last one appears to be correct, but I fail to see how they're worse than say, supporters of Franco.

Earth First and ELF are different, as well, remember.

-Alex

[Vanguard1917]

It's an absolute hypothetical. Again it's a disgusting thing to even contemplate, but they aren't supporting it, they are talking about it's possible benefits were it to happen.

:lol:

Astonishing.

[Janus]

ELF, EF, and other radical environmentalist groups all have reactionary and flawed ideologies in terms of their targets and their end goals.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Laugh all day long, it doesn't change anything. Yes, obviously it's inexcusable to even consider that AIDS could be beneficial in some way - But that's all they're doing, hypothesising. There's no "We want an AIDS epidemic" in there.

-Alex

[welshred]

Hey vanguard, where did you get those statements from?

[bcbm]

Wow. She went very deep...

No, no... they did. ;) :lol:


Their social analysis is very primitive, since they see all modern technology and infrastructure as "evil".

I don't think that is an accurate assessment of ELF "ideology," in so much as an "organization" so structured can even have one. They don't view all modern technology or infrastructure as evil, only that which harms the environment and to that end they try to remove the profit motive from the capitalists by causing millions of dollars of damage. Obviously this is a purely reactionary and ultimately flawed perspective, as it offers no direct challenge to capital, but I definitely think some "cells" have moved in the direction of a more thorough critique, judging from some of the communiques coming out. I find their anti-condo and development work to be top-notch.


oh really? I heard somewhere they were straight up anarchists

Many anarchists have acted under the ELF banner, but the organizational philosophy isn't particularly anarchist.


I am strongly opposed to their anti-human ideology

Examples?


Few insights from Earth First (the organisation whose members went on to form the Earth Liberation Front)

Neither "organization" is particularly homogeneous, and your quotes have no source or context. I have no love lost on most of the batshit insane nutjob fucks that inhabit the "radical" environmentalist movement, but if you're going to skewer them at least let us know who is doing the talking and which specific entities and ideologies grouped within the EF/ELF banner you're trying to roast.... I suppose the answer for you is all of them, but I think that overlooks some decent tendencies within them that have just become tied in with fuckos.

[Jazzratt]

Long response: ELF, ALF, EF and the plethora of wanky anti-progressives are detrimental to our movement, especially as a lot of them have become inextricably associated with the anarchist movement and to some extent leftism in general. As each of them attack our progressive technologies, from nuclear power stations to medical research facilities they simultaneously slow the march of technology and sully the name of sensible leftists.

Though they do not explicitly want everyone to contract malaria, AIDS, bubonic plague, cholera or whatever they are certainly implying that these things are positive. This and their mystical approach to "mother gaia" and all that wank are reason enough to criticise these groups.

They may be attacking some of the same targets and achieving (either deliberately or inadvertently) some of the same goals as us this is no reason to support them, as the same can be said of a lot of radical islamist groups and even of certain fascist groups (the KKK against the war in iraq for example) - a similarity in targets and achievements is no measure of theoretical correlation.

Short response: They can go fuck themselves.

[Vanguard1917]

but if you're going to skewer them at least let us know who is doing the talking and which specific entities and ideologies grouped within the EF/ELF banner you're trying to roast

The quote about malaria being a good thing is from Dave Foreman, who is the founder of Earth First. (Type the whole quote in Google and you'll find various sorces.)

The one about famine in Ethiopia being less tragic than the death of animals is also by Earth First founder Dave Foreman. (again various sources on Google)

The one about AIDS being a good thing is from a 1989 Earth First newsletter.

And this is what Dave Foreman (the founder of Earth First, remember, not someone on the fringes of the organisation) had to say about the famine in Ethiopia:

"The worst thing we could do is to give aid . . . the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve." (source (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1143))

Let's emphasise that: the best thing to do would be to let people starve and let nature seek its balance.

Earth First and ELF are extremely marginal and insignificant organisations. They don't really worry me much. The thing that concerns me is that there are people on a supposedly leftwing website sympathising with and apologising for such scum.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal
Examples?

If it isn't obvious to you already, their promotion of non-human life to the same level or higher than that of humans places the whole damn human species into a detrimental position - hence anti-human.

Really, there is no more obligation to the environment by us humans than what is needed to keep us alive and comfortable.

[Sentinel]

See also this previous thread: ELF-ALF (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36532&hl=peta)

So, what do I think of the 'ELF'? Of course they may be a 'loose network (of guess what :lol: )' and even some half-sane people could be acting in their name on occasion. But the name really says it all here -- humans striving to 'liberate earth' from human 'oppression' can't be anything but ..wackos.

Think about it.

Looking at their record they would seem slightly milder cases than the PETA, not to mention the ALF, but not much. But as NoXion pointed out, there's no way around the fact that any group with it's priorities outside and even contradictory to those of humanity are patently reactionary to the progression of human society, which I see as my prime objective as a communist.

Thus they're no comrades of mine. I'm all for sustainable development, no question about it -- but I'm that for rational reasons, because I'm anthropocentric: I and my species are dependant of it. We must progress carefully, outweighing all possible long term effects of the impact we have on the planet as long as it's our only one.

But we must never fall into the emotionalist trap that we start considering nature somehow 'sacred', that it has an intrinsic value on it's own other than the being our home. Neither must we never, ever let our development be held back by irrational fear.

If we can alter the environment to our ultimate benefit, we should, and it's tough shit for everything else crawling and growing here. Humanity first, always.

[bcbm]

Really, there is no more obligation to the environment by us humans than what is needed to keep us alive and comfortable.

Comfort is subjective. What I would find comfortable is certainly different than the parking lot some members here would prefer.


humans striving to 'liberate earth' from human 'oppression' can't be anything but ..wackos.

Um... that isn't their objective.

[chimx]

What a surprise to see Vanguard popping in to spew his regular capitalist garbage! This time around he cites sources from a laissez-faire capitalist group that has a Milton Friefman tribute. Of course its no surprise tat his "source" offers no context whatsoever to the quotation in question. It is just another capitalist cumrag that Vanguard totes around for his smear campaign. Why do we allow this kind of trash to exist outside its boundaries of the OI forum?

--

That said, both Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front are extremely dynamic groups with an equally dynamic membership basis. You see a wide spectrum of activists, from the apolitical ecology activists, to the overtly political anti-capitalists. From my personal experiences the latter tend to dominate. Due to the nature of the activism, it is often the wishes of the members to not make their personal politics, though connected to their activism, not as public. This isn't always the case though.

For example. I used to work wth Earth First! in Montana. At the time, the United States Forest Service was working to undermine community input so as to sell the public forests to logging companies under the pretenses of "forest restoration." The federal government came in and sold my communities timber to large companies and largely bypassed the public's input process, due primarily from it being an unpopular sale.

In response to this we did a campaign of direct action to both hinder the timber sale as well as to gain media attention. Because the latter is such a high importane to the success of environmental campaigns, many groups do not publicize their anti-capitalist sentiments. We disagreed. We stopped a logging truck in the heart of our town and conntect ropes to it. We then rapelled off the side of a bridge with a banner reading, "global capitalism kills our forests." The G8 in Calgary was occurring soon and we wanted to make a connection. In another situation we had banners on a tree sit in which we purposefully colored the letters with diagonal red and black and green and black. Perhaps a little too subtle.

My friends and comrades went to jail for the work they did. Others of us nearly avoided it. What I find deplorable is that instead of comments of solidarity on this forum, there are capitalist apologists like Vanguard, while others comfortably sit at their computers and call me and my friends "reactionary" and "antihuman".

Many of these people were street medics that would work at demonstrations and give aid to protestors, perhaps one of you at some time. They held workshops to help people with their health. Some of them worked with "seeds of peace" which is responsible for feeding thousands of activists at demonstrations such as the WTO protests in Seattle as well as the FTA protests in Florida.

It is simply pathetic that this forum's membership will send a lynch mob after dedicated anarchists and communists, yet offer protection to capialist cum fuckers like Vanguard. Where the fuck is everybody's priorities?

[Vanguard1917]

That said, both Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front are extremely dynamic groups with an equally dynamic membership basis.


I used to work wth Earth First! in Montana.

For the record, you're making it clear that you are a supporter of Earth First. Take note moderator Sentinel.


Of course its no surprise tat his "source" offers no context whatsoever to the quotation in question.

The quote in question is this:

"The worst thing we could do is to give aid . . . the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve."

The quote is saying that people in Ethiopia should starve. Please tell me in what context could a quote like that possibly be justified.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:18 pm

That said, both Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front are extremely dynamic groups with an equally dynamic membership basis.


I used to work wth Earth First! in Montana.

For the record, you're making it clear that you are a supporter of Earth First. Take note moderator Sentinel.
Did you see the part about the group being dynamic? :rolleyes: Stupid fuck.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by bcbm+--> (bcbm)Um... that isn't their objective.[/b]

According to their former press office they are a network which uses 'economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment'. Now, an environmentalist group I'd support might have put it a wee bit differently, say to stop dangerous overexploitation and destruction of vital parts of the environment. That would even make sense!

And once again, I'm sure there are a few decent fellows who associate with the group. But the message the network is sending isn't decent at all. The bulk of 'ELF', or those most visible at least, are like I said clearly not primarily concerned about the wellbeing of the human species.

Instead they focus on protecting the 'natural' environment ie trying to minimise human impact on theenvironment, be it good or bad for us (impact which is permanently malicious to the environment in a way that we know it'll damage us more in the long run, than it benefits us temporarily is 'bad').

I disagree with such intentions.


chimx
It is simply pathetic that this forum's membership will send a lynch mob after dedicated anarchists and communists, yet offer protection to capialist cum fuckers like Vanguard. Where the fuck is everybody's priorities?

Firstly, I don't see how criticising someones ideas equals 'sending a lynch mob'. If the ELF are as fantastic as you say, then they have failed to convince us of that, and we will say so. This is a debate forum, remember? Also, how has VG1917 been 'protected'? :huh:

Please calm down, no need for personal insults and flames like that. Let's restrict the name calling to each others ideas, movements etc, ok?

Secondly, any actually important and progressively anti-capitalist actions, even by 'ELF' and their likes, have my support at least. It doesn't mean I'll have to endorse the 'ELF' as a group and what it otherwise stands for, though.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:24 pm
According to their former press office they are a network which uses 'economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment'.
That's a bit different than what you stated their objective was. They simply want to stop capitalist development that is harmful to the environment by making it unprofitable to engage in such activity.



And once again, I'm sure there are a few decent fellows who associate with the group. But the message the network is sending isn't decent at all.

No need to repeat at me... I said as much in my first post in the thread.

[chimx]

Now, an environmentalist group I'd support might have put it a wee bit differently, say to stop dangerous overexploitation and destruction of vital parts of the environment. That would even make sense!

"exploitation" is a rather loaded word these days and often is accompanied with far more negative connotations than when it was used in similar circumstances 200 years ago. If exploitation for you includes sustainable development, then I'm sure yo will find yourself right at home with most EF!ers and ELFers.


And once again, I'm sure there are a few decent fellows who associate with the group. But the message the network is sending isn't decent at all. The bulk of 'ELF', or those most visible at least, are like I said clearly not primarily concerned about the wellbeing of the human species.

I would say that considering their targets are expensive ski resorts, hummers for rich people, etc., their agenda is more often than not, the sabotaging the capitalist exploitation of the environment. Of course, the ELF isn't any more than an ecological "calling" and has no real frame work. An ELF memberin Wisconsin simply won't know an ELF member in Oregon. The great degree of individual/cell autonomy inevitably results in a minimum of real work accountability--short of public denouncements of particular actions.


Firstly, I don't see how criticising someones ideas equals 'sending a lynch mob'.

Pardon my colorful language, but how does this forum of revolutionaries generally advocate dealing with what they define to be "reactionaries"?


Please calm down, no need for personal insults and flames like that.

I will gladly bite my tongue when dealing with other anti-capitalists, but unfortunately Vanguard's brand of laissez-fairre capitalism doesn't apply. I don't like saying "please" or "thank you" to such avowed capitalist idealogues, so please pardon me in the future when I yell at capitalists in sheep's clothing.


Secondly, any actually important and progressively anti-capitalist actions, even by 'ELF' and their likes, have my support at least. It doesn't mean I'll have to endorse the 'ELF' as a group and what it otherwise stands for, though.

I have never been an affiliate of the ELF, just Earth First!. ELF cells have done things that I strongly agree with, and other things I disagree with. Ultimately I feel their hearts are in the right place, despite their momnts of ignorance. I feel that severe criticisms of "anti-human reactionaries" are unfounded and ultimately harmful to the anti-capitalist movement generally. We should be proud that people from within our ranks had the balls to dare to do some of the things they have done.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Comfort is subjective.

With rare exceptions, most humans prefer comfort over pain. In what way is that subjective?

[Vargha Poralli]

Well as an environmentalist myself I do not oppose EF or ELF but IMO what they lack is the clear political perspective.

Yes we need save the exploitation of Earth and destruction of Nature by capitalists but that cannot be achieved in the long run by either Greenpeace or WWF or by ELF,ALF and EF etc. Their activism has so far have just achieved creation of a new market -Vegan, Green and Eco-Friendly market.Saving earth which is the only home for life right now cannot be achieved until the greatest enemy of Humanity - Capitalism is destroyed, which cannot be accomplished by individuals but only by Masses.

And also IMO most of the Greens (atleast with whom I have workerd with)don't oppose Industrialisation. They oppose malpractices of Industries which damage the livelihood of workers and peasants.They fight mainly for curing the problems created by Industries which capitalists and their allies(aka Bourgeoisie politicians) don't care about as it is not their priority not abandoning of Industrialism.


-------------------------------------

An historical analysis of these green movement from Marxist Point of view from Marxist Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/g/r.htm#green-movement) might explain how these movements originated and how they grew up in to what they are. I have posted this in some threads which Vanguard1917 started but he never engaged with this.

[Dimentio]

Given that, those groups do not in themselves recognise the need for growth within the price system. Hence, they have a blind spot to what is truely causing ecological devastation. Of course, technology could be harmful, but it is often misused just because of our fixation with economic growth.

http://en.technocracynet.eu

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:14 pm


Really, there is no more obligation to the environment by us humans than what is needed to keep us alive and comfortable.
I agree, there is nothing sacred about the earth and should not be held over the wellbeing of humanity. But the fact is that the health of humans is and will be for a long time tied the to the ecosystems that we live in. At this point the biosphere is going through a mass extinction on par with the previous ones. If we destroy the planets capacity to support billions of people, the consequences will be far greater than any fascist state, pandemic, or natural disaster.

Though radical environmental groups may not have the best theory or end goals, they are an important counter to pillaging of capitalism. But as someone here once said, environmentalism is worthless without a clear socialist perspective in the long run.

Portraying environmentalism as a middle class ideology is insane, as all radical movements grow in strength they are co-opted and diluted by the powers that be.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I used to work wth Earth First!

:blink:

Fucking hell. Do you agree with letting nature run its course and allowing starvation, disease, etc?

I'm sure you don't, but even being an affiliate of an organisation that forwards that idea is pretty damnable.

-Alex

[chimx]

Fucking hell. Do you agree with letting nature run its course and allowing starvation, disease, etc?

I've been to EF! regional rendevous' and have never heard any of these people or friends of mine advocate mass starvation, disease, genocide, etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:14 am

Fucking hell. Do you agree with letting nature run its course and allowing starvation, disease, etc?

I've been to EF! regional rendevous' and have never heard any of these people or friends of mine advocate mass starvation, disease, genocide, etc.
Allowing such things to happen through wilful inaction is just as bad as actively advocating it.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:09 am

Comfort is subjective.

With rare exceptions, most humans prefer comfort over pain. In what way is that subjective?
What one considers a suitable level of "comfort" is subjective.

[chimx]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 15, 2007 12:36 am--> (NoXion @ May 15, 2007 12:36 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 12:14 am

Fucking hell. Do you agree with letting nature run its course and allowing starvation, disease, etc?

I've been to EF! regional rendevous' and have never heard any of these people or friends of mine advocate mass starvation, disease, genocide, etc.
Allowing such things to happen through wilful inaction is just as bad as actively advocating it. [/b]
What's your point, other than baselessly attacking commited leftists with ignorant libel?

[Vanguard1917]

They're pieces of filth, not leftists.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Serpent+May 14, 2007 02:47 pm--> (Serpent @ May 14, 2007 02:47 pm) Given that, those groups do not in themselves recognise the need for growth within the price system. Hence, they have a blind spot to what is truely causing ecological devastation. Of course, technology could be harmful, but it is often misused just because of our fixation with economic growth.

http://en.technocracynet.eu [/b]
What proof do you have that they don't recognise that growth is an essential part of capitalism and thus capitalism is inherently anti-environmental? Heck I noticed that years ago when I was still a social democrat. Greens I know recognise this.

In fact, all environmentalists are socialist (though not all are anarchists, for some reason some think there is a need for a state ...), they just might not know it.


I would be surprised if even half of the people who do stuff under the label "Earth Liberation Front" did not see a problem with capitalism, because of the need for an effectively infinite amount of resources.


Vanguard1917
They're pieces of filth, not leftists.That's funny, that is exactly what I think of you ...

[Bilan]

I support the idea of the ELF. And from what i've heard, there's been no such mention of anything 'anti-human' or anything. From Earth First! I've heard such thing, but no the ELF. The two are not the same.
The ELF has a good structure to limit infiltration (though there has been cases like the one recently) outlined in this:
"
# There is no ELF structure; "it" is non-hierarchical and there is no centralized organization or leadership.

# There is no "membership" in the Earth Liberation Front.

# Any individuals who committed arson or any other illegal acts under the ELF name are individuals who choose to do so under the banner of ELF and do so only driven by their personal conscience."

The strucutre (or lack of) creates autonomy for people carrying out their actions. You can not plant a single idealogy on the ELF, with the exception that it wishes to defend the earth. It is not "anti-human" because it can't be. Perhaps those who carry out ELF actions are, but it can not be claimed to be a part of the ELF idealogy.

Earth First! is completely different.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by chimx+May 15, 2007 02:59 am--> (chimx @ May 15, 2007 02:59 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:36 am

[email protected] 15, 2007 12:14 am

Fucking hell. Do you agree with letting nature run its course and allowing starvation, disease, etc?

I've been to EF! regional rendevous' and have never heard any of these people or friends of mine advocate mass starvation, disease, genocide, etc.
Allowing such things to happen through wilful inaction is just as bad as actively advocating it.
What's your point, other than baselessly attacking commited leftists with ignorant libel? [/b]
The ultimate effect of uncontrolled nature is mass-death (disease, starvation and the like). What do the "glorious defenders of mother gaia" say to the families who have lost possesions and loved ones to the uncaring winds of a hurricane, seen the people they cherish sucked up by a tornado or witnessed the dstruction of their lives as all their nearest and dearest fell through the colossal fissures opened by earthquakes? What makes "nature" so damn great to these guys? It's just another piece of mysticism.

We are not attacking them for their leftism, or any action related to that leftism but for their environmental fundamentalism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bite the hand:


The strucutre (or lack of) creates autonomy for people carrying out their actions. You can not plant a single idealogy on the ELF, with the exception that it wishes to defend the earth. It is not "anti-human" because it can't be. Perhaps those who carry out ELF actions are, but it can not be claimed to be a part of the ELF idealogy.
What a cop out. Also, as has been pointed out in numerous posts "defending the Earth" necessitates at least some anti-human thought process.

[Bilan]

Jazzrat:


The strucutre (or lack of) creates autonomy for people carrying out their actions. You can not plant a single idealogy on the ELF, with the exception that it wishes to defend the earth. It is not "anti-human" because it can't be. Perhaps those who carry out ELF actions are, but it can not be claimed to be a part of the ELF idealogy.

What a cop out. Also, as has been pointed out in numerous posts "defending the Earth" necessitates at least some anti-human thought process.


Its far to broad to be simplified in such a way.
To believe in "Defending the earth" does not necessarily require any anti-human thought processes.

Also, could you elaborate on how it's a cop out?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 15, 2007 11:37 am
Its far to broad to be simplified in such a way.
To believe in "Defending the earth" does not necessarily require any anti-human thought processes.
Is there even one ELF member who would not do anything detrimental to humanity as a whole (campaign against nuclear power) in the name of the cause?


Also, could you elaborate on how it's a cop out?
Clearly ideological organisations such as RAAN, ELF and a few others like to fall back on the "we're an autonomous group/ we're a tendency" argument but it is clear from actions that have been committed under the ELF banner that there is an ideology at work and it does NOT hold us humans in very high regard. Simply because one does not have an explicitly stated ideology does not mean that there will not, over time be a de facto ideology that is dictated by the kind of people who join an organisation and the actions they undertake.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 15, 2007 11:37 am
Its far to broad to be simplified in such a way.
To believe in "Defending the earth" does not necessarily require any anti-human thought processes.

Is there even one ELF member who would not do anything detrimental to humanity as a whole (campaign against nuclear power) in the name of the cause?

Well, in regards to the campaign against nuclear power, I would assume most would act against Nuclear Power because it's damaging to the earth as well as incredibly dangerous for humans.
I dont think most ELF activists would (of course, I dont necessarily have a whole lot to base that on, but neither do you). I dont believe that most are anti-human because they are "pro-earth". For most environmentalists I've met, the two (humans and the earth) have too co-exist, and none have ever suggested such disturbing things as "letting nature run its course" in a sense that would ensure the deaths of millions of people (In no way am I suggesting none do).
So yes, I think there are ELF activists who would not do anything detrimental to humanity as a whole in the name of the cause.



Also, could you elaborate on how it's a cop out?

Clearly ideological organisations such as RAAN, ELF and a few others like to fall back on the "we're an autonomous group/ we're a tendency" argument but it is clear from actions that have been committed under the ELF banner that there is an ideology at work and it does NOT hold us humans in very high regard. Simply because one does not have an explicitly stated ideology does not mean that there will not, over time be a de facto ideology that is dictated by the kind of people who join an organisation and the actions they undertake.

Fair point.

Could you name some of these actions that people have committed under the ELF banner that have led you to this conclusion?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 15, 2007 01:34 pm
Well, in regards to the campaign against nuclear power, I would assume most would act against Nuclear Power because it's damaging to the earth as well as incredibly dangerous for humans.
And because of this view it may well be that we're fucked. We should have been building nuke power stations years ago. Although the blame for this mainly liews with Greenpeace.


I dont think most ELF activists would (of course, I dont necessarily have a whole lot to base that on, but neither do you). I dont believe that most are anti-human because they are "pro-earth". For most environmentalists I've met, the two (humans and the earth) have too co-exist, and none have ever suggested such disturbing things as "letting nature run its course" in a sense that would ensure the deaths of millions of people (In no way am I suggesting none do).
So yes, I think there are ELF activists who would not do anything detrimental to humanity as a whole in the name of the cause.
What about the fact they attack our energy production and resource gathering operations? Eventually one must fall down on either the anthropocentric or biocentric side of an issue, and these two things are not always the same. ELF as a biocentric organisation necessarily opposes a lot of anthropocentrism which puts them at odds with both the left and humanity in general.


Could you name some of these actions that people have committed under the ELF banner that have led you to this conclusion?
Speaking broadly I would say that attacks on genetic engineering facilities and those involved in the production of energy (e.g. power stations) or resource gathering (logging camps for example). Not only does this belie a contempt for human progress and continuation but also for the working class specifically (who do you think is really hurt by these actions? The big business or the labourers who no longer have a place to work?).

[chimx]

What about the fact they attack our energy production and resource gathering operations?

What do you mean "our" energy production. Do you own oil companies?

[Bilan]

Jazzrat:


And because of this view it may well be that we're fucked. We should have been building nuke power stations years ago. Although the blame for this mainly liews with Greenpeace.
Well, that's a matter of opinion on who you're putting in danger there. Argueably, by putting in nuclear power stations, you're putting people in danger.



Speaking broadly I would say that attacks on genetic engineering facilities and those involved in the production of energy (e.g. power stations) or resource gathering (logging camps for example). Not only does this belie a contempt for human progress and continuation but also for the working class specifically (who do you think is really hurt by these actions? The big business or the labourers who no longer have a place to work?).

Well, those are a matter of opinion on who thats benefiting in the work place.
Yes, if you destroy a truck, that affects the workers negativley (or perhaps it wont. Depending on the context). However, who is that really benefiting.
The extent that, for example, logging is taken too is way out of balance. A balance that is major issue for our existance, and for the planet.
I dont agree it displays contempt for 'human progress', rather, it shows contempt for out of control destruction in the interests of the rich. Which is, essentially, who's interests its in.
Workers losing their place to work is fucked, dont get me wrong, I'm not suggesting thats in anyway good. However, well it depends which angle you look at it from. Short term benefits (a worker who has a job, who [at least in this country] is guarenteed no security what-so-ever) or long term (stopping something that is going to pollute our water ways [or whatever] and bring a very serious threat to our existance if its not stopped?).
Workers and environmentalists are not, and should not be enemies. Workers jobs are not safe under this system, and neither is the earth. I dont, personally, see any point in diving the left because of their interests in environmentalism (or lack of).
If the ELF did nothing, and Nuclear power was put in your country, would that make it any better a place?
Remember who's hands that its going to go into.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Jazzratt
And because of this view it may well be that we're fucked. We should have been building nuke power stations years ago. Although the blame for this mainly liews with Greenpeace.


That is total bullshit.

1) Actually protests against Nuclear power stations sharpened only after Chernobyl disaster. We must get the facts straight.

2) Greenpeace does not oppose construction of Nuclear power stations. Their campaign had been mainly against atmospheric and underwater nuclear testing. And their main objective is nuclear disarmament.

3) It is not because of the campaign of Greenpeace there are little nuclear power stations in the world but because of the fact it is much costly to setup and maintain and run it that discourages third world nations from having one.

And also you are missing Geopolitical contradictions. Saddam's plan of Nuclearising his regime was halted by Israel and on going Iran nuclear crises are examples.

And almost all countries that build Nuclear Stations also have Nuclear Weapons. It might be correleation but I find it outrageous that Governments of India and Pakistan spending millions in stockpiling Nuclear weapons and rockets when the majority of their population is illiterate,malnourished and live in absolute poverty.


Argueably, by putting in nuclear power stations, you're putting people in danger.

You know this is really stupid still having the memories of Chernobyl. That incidnt gave a lots of lesson and the new designs have greatly reduced the possiblity of accidents.

Considering Nuclear energy is somewhat cleaner than Fossil Fuels opposing it in the long run is not going to do any good.

And I am not saying we must ignore the dangers of Nuclear energy. That should also be considered. But the options is limited for the time being.We must deal with the reality.

[Bilan]

You know this is really stupid still having the memories of Chernobyl. That incidnt gave a lots of lesson and the new designs have greatly reduced the possiblity of accidents.

Considering Nuclear energy is somewhat cleaner than Fossil Fuels opposing it in the long run is not going to do any good.

And I am not saying we must ignore the dangers of Nuclear energy. That should also be considered. But the options is limited for the time being.We must deal with the reality.

I just wanted to put a shortened version of the opposing view (and probably doing it little justice), trying to show their are two sides to the picture on which is "dangerous to humans".

I do think, however, that as opposed to resorting to nuclear energy, we should search for alternative energy (or a mixture of alternative energies) for power, ones that do not prove to have significant dangers.

[apathy maybe]

I think the point about logging and workers jobs is an important one. Just because environmentalists oppose certain logging, doesn't mean they oppose workers jobs.

Take for example the Tasmanian Greens. A couple of years ago, they created a plan that would create more jobs, in a variety of different areas, that would be sustainable and so on. The alternative was to continue to wood chip old growth and high conservation value forests, workers would continue to loose jobs (the Tasmanian forest industry is a great example that shows that the corporations aim to make money, not look after the workers) and the whole industry is unsustainable (cutting down 100 year old or 200 year old or 300 year old trees isn't sustainable really...).

Obviously the environmentalists have the workers interests more at heart then Gunns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunns)...

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 16, 2007 06:02 am
Jazzrat:


And because of this view it may well be that we're fucked. We should have been building nuke power stations years ago. Although the blame for this mainly liews with Greenpeace.
Well, that's a matter of opinion on who you're putting in danger there. Argueably, by putting in nuclear power stations, you're putting people in danger.
It's not a matter of opinion though, the risk is either real or it isn't.

The only "opinion" is what constitutes an acceptable level of risk.


Well, those are a matter of opinion on who thats benefiting in the work place.
Yes, if you destroy a truck, that affects the workers negativley (or perhaps it wont. Depending on the context). However, who is that really benefiting.
Naturally the destroying of a truck really benefits no one, except possibly the nutball that did it.

The extent that, for example, logging is taken too is way out of balance. A balance that is major issue for our existance, and for the planet.
How do you define this "balance" who says what too much logging is? You? Multinational lumber companies? Whackjob Earth First!ers? Some bloke down the pub? WHO?

I dont agree it displays contempt for 'human progress', rather, it shows contempt for out of control destruction in the interests of the rich. Which is, essentially, who's interests its in.
Progress is always in our interest, the more we progress now the easier establishing a post-revolutionary society becomes.

Workers losing their place to work is fucked, dont get me wrong, I'm not suggesting thats in anyway good. However, well it depends which angle you look at it from.
I'll look at it from the angle of the dole queue.

Short term benefits (a worker who has a job, who [at least in this country] is guarenteed no security what-so-ever) or long term (stopping something that is going to pollute our water ways [or whatever] and bring a very serious threat to our existance if its not stopped?).
That's a bit too black and white, remember that another long term effect would be a reduction in the amount of things we can produce and of total energy we can use.

Workers and environmentalists are not, and should not be enemies. Workers jobs are not safe under this system, and neither is the earth.
Why exacerbate the situation of the worker by making the loss of their job more likely by destroying their work place? The earth will not, and cannot, be saved by isolated incidents of monkeywrenching. It requires that we have a socio-economic system that can be planned to deal with the environment.

I dont, personally, see any point in diving the left because of their interests in environmentalism (or lack of).
Nor do I and I also consider myself an environmentalist - but I'm anthropocentric rather than biocentric.

If the ELF did nothing, and Nuclear power was put in your country, would that make it any better a place?
Yes, indubitably.

Remember who's hands that its going to go into.
Energy generated through atomic power goes to everyone.

[Bilan]

It's not a matter of opinion though, the risk is either real or it isn't.

The only "opinion" is what constitutes an acceptable level of risk.

Okay, so how does that make us (or you - as we live in different countries) fucked because we haven't used nuclear power? The risk hasn't increased because we haven't used nuclear power. Environmetally speaking, the only risk that has increased is due to the use of fossil fuels, not the lack of nuclear power.

This getting a little off topic.


Well, those are a matter of opinion on who thats benefiting in the work place.
Yes, if you destroy a truck, that affects the workers negativley (or perhaps it wont. Depending on the context). However, who is that really benefiting.

Naturally the destroying of a truck really benefits no one, except possibly the nutball that did it.

To an extent, it, if carried out correctly, creates an incentive for a company to stop from particpating in a particular practice.
That is, if carried out correctly.



How do you define this "balance" who says what too much logging is? You? Multinational lumber companies? Whackjob Earth First!ers? Some bloke down the pub? WHO?

I'd say a scientist, personally. :lol:
And you can tell the affects of something (Say logging) by noticing the extreme changes in the surrounding environment.



Progress is always in our interest, the more we progress now the easier establishing a post-revolutionary society becomes.

Perhaps, but its questionable when that progress is also dangerously and negativley affecting our planet, is it not?
And what if that 'progress' is in conflict with what the people think? I mean, logging of old growth forests, for example, isn't popular, but is still carried out.

How is the more we progress (So far as technologically) paving the way for an easier establishment of post revolutionary society?


That's a bit too black and white, remember that another long term effect would be a reduction in the amount of things we can produce and of total energy we can use.

True, but that doesn't change the long term affects so far as negative (extremely) long term damage to the environment.



Why exacerbate the situation of the worker by making the loss of their job more likely by destroying their work place? The earth will not, and cannot, be saved by isolated incidents of monkeywrenching. It requires that we have a socio-economic system that can be planned to deal with the environment.

Fair point, but does that mean we sit on our hands and do nothing?
Some people really care for this earth, and don't believe they can wait for the revolution to come. It's more about at least stopping some of th destruction in the here and now.


If the ELF did nothing, and Nuclear power was put in your country, would that make it any better a place?

Yes, indubitably.

How?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 17, 2007 10:59 am

It's not a matter of opinion though, the risk is either real or it isn't.

The only "opinion" is what constitutes an acceptable level of risk.

Okay, so how does that make us (or you - as we live in different countries) fucked because we haven't used nuclear power? The risk hasn't increased because we haven't used nuclear power. Environmetally speaking, the only risk that has increased is due to the use of fossil fuels, not the lack of nuclear power.

This getting a little off topic.
Without atomic energy we are relying on fossil fuels more, these are running out ergo we are fucked.


To an extent, it, if carried out correctly, creates an incentive for a company to stop from particpating in a particular practice.
That is, if carried out correctly.
But why do we need ELF to do that, the best way to change the practices of a company is to organise the workers within that company not have some middle class anti-human hooligans attempt to destroy their assets.


I'd say a scientist, personally. :lol:
And you can tell the affects of something (Say logging) by noticing the extreme changes in the surrounding environment.
Which scientists? I don't imagine an astrophysicist would be able to help much. The thing with scientists defining it is that science doesn't function like a religion, we don't have high priests telling us infallible facts we have people making educated guesses.
For example did you know that in a lot of fairly large scientific circles it is considered that forests do not give a net increase in oxygen? Also remember that what one scientist says about the world may well be contradicted by another, in which case you're going to have to study the facts for yourself - this is not the kind of behaviour undertaken by the ELF who just tend to latch on to the latest scare story and run with it.


Perhaps, but its questionable when that progress is also dangerously and negativley affecting our planet, is it not?
It's questionable, and questioning it is encouraged, but if it isn't found to be jeopardising the existance of humans then go for it.


And what if that 'progress' is in conflict with what the people think? I mean, logging of old growth forests, for example, isn't popular, but is still carried out.

It depends what it is, if it's something like old growth forests then I recommend "the people" either stop using wood or stop whining. If it a genuine problem for the well being of people then a measured opposition should be made.


How is the more we progress (So far as technologically) paving the way for an easier establishment of post revolutionary society?

Remember that in a post revolutionary society we have to avoid the constraints of scarcity and build up a post-scarcity world whilst at the same time doing away with work as much as possible - therefore we must advance technology as much as possible.


True, but that doesn't change the long term affects so far as negative (extremely) long term damage to the environment.

What specific damage are you talking about? Are you positive it's irreversible? Are you sure it's even that much of a concern?


Fair point, but does that mean we sit on our hands and do nothing?
Some people really care for this earth, and don't believe they can wait for the revolution to come. It's more about at least stopping some of th destruction in the here and now.

I'm afraid that the people you describe are as much the enemy as the capitalists. If they do not want to simply wait for a revolution then they should work towards it, organise in the work place, join radical unions and constantly advocate a new society to everyone they meet.


How?
I'd have cheap energy and would be less worried about running out of fuel.

[Bilan]

Jazzrat:


Without atomic energy we are relying on fossil fuels more, these are running out ergo we are fucked.

Yes, but we are fucked due to our dependence on fossil fuels, not due to the fact that we dont use atomic energy.


But why do we need ELF to do that, the best way to change the practices of a company is to organise the workers within that company not have some middle class anti-human hooligans attempt to destroy their assets.

I thought we established they aren't anti-human?...well, anyway.
That's a fair point, I dont disagree. however, it is not the only way, and most ELF actions send a strong message to the company, and have over time made them change their practices.


Which scientists? I don't imagine an astrophysicist would be able to help much.

Aw, come on!


The thing with scientists defining it is that science doesn't function like a religion, we don't have high priests telling us infallible facts we have people making educated guesses.

True.


For example did you know that in a lot of fairly large scientific circles it is considered that forests do not give a net increase in oxygen? Also remember that what one scientist says about the world may well be contradicted by another, in which case you're going to have to study the facts for yourself

Also true.


this is not the kind of behaviour undertaken by the ELF who just tend to latch on to the latest scare story and run with it.

Not so true.


It depends what it is, if it's something like old growth forests then I recommend "the people" either stop using wood or stop whining. If it a genuine problem for the well being of people then a measured opposition should be made.

But instead of "stop using wood" would it not be better to say, stop using wood from old growth forest, and instead harvest wood from plantations that are already inexistance?


What specific damage are you talking about? Are you positive it's irreversible? Are you sure it's even that much of a concern?

Damage to vital ecosystems; destruction of habitats; pollution of water ways; You know, that sort of thing.


I'm afraid that the people you describe are as much the enemy as the capitalists. If they do not want to simply wait for a revolution then they should work towards it, organise in the work place, join radical unio
ns and constantly advocate a new society to everyone they meet.

Okay, that I think is just unfair.
The ELF/ALF are not " as much the enemy as the capitalists". The ELF do not advocate for oppression, tyranny, or anything of the like. They aim to defend the earth from the unnecessary destruction forced upon it by capitalism.
The structure of it represents a rejection of right wing idealogy, and you can safely assume that it would be made up of anti-capitalists and the like.
It is not fair to say they are enemies. They are most certainly comrades. But comrades who aim to stop what they can while they can. Things that are important to them.
This is not to say that they are "anti worker" or "anti human", no. It is to say that do not wish to allow the destruction of the earth to continue, and to try and defend what is left of the earth from capitalism.

I am however for contantly advocating a new society, and organising, and working toward the revolution.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 19, 2007 02:42 pm
Jazzrat:


Without atomic energy we are relying on fossil fuels more, these are running out ergo we are fucked.

Yes, but we are fucked due to our dependence on fossil fuels, not due to the fact that we dont use atomic energy.
We rely on more fossil fuels because we don't use atomic energy.


I thought we established they aren't anti-human?
Not to my satisfaction "we" hadn't.

...well, anyway.
That's a fair point, I dont disagree. however, it is not the only way, and most ELF actions send a strong message to the company, and have over time made them change their practices.
Actually what it mostly does is send a strong message that ELF are fuckwits and should be clapped in irons. (Not that I personally advocate their clapping in irons.) This, naturally, makes it harder for other leftist groups to take action as a lot of resources are put into prevent ELF fuckwittery.



Which scientists? I don't imagine an astrophysicist would be able to help much.

Aw, come on!
It may have seemed pedantic but you must remember that "scientist" is a very broad term for people who work in very specific fields and most scientists aren't very helpful outside of their field.



this is not the kind of behaviour undertaken by the ELF who just tend to latch on to the latest scare story and run with it.

Not so true.
So you contend that the ELF are more likely to weigh up the pros and cons of current thinking on a subject rather than simply go in for one that makes it seem like industrial progress is some kind of bogeyman?


But instead of "stop using wood" would it not be better to say, stop using wood from old growth forest, and instead harvest wood from plantations that are already inexistance?
If we can create new forests why is whether or not a forest is "old growth" actually matter, beyond sentimentality?


Damage to vital ecosystems; destruction of habitats; pollution of water ways; You know, that sort of thing.
Vital to whom? Us or some animals? Give specific examples of such ecosystems. As for habitats: the habitats of which animals, and what do those animals contribute to human wellbeing? Water ways can be filtered before consumption by people, although it would be a good idea to keep any edible fish alive as well.


Okay, that I think is just unfair.
The ELF/ALF are not " as much the enemy as the capitalists".
Maybe the ELF can be helpful, but the ALF? A blatantly anti-human organisation (opposing vivisection for example)!

The ELF do not advocate for oppression, tyranny, or anything of the like. They aim to defend the earth from the unnecessary destruction forced upon it by capitalism.
So they would stop these ludicrous technophobic attacks after a revolution. I do not share that faith.


The structure of it represents a rejection of right wing idealogy, and you can safely assume that it would be made up of anti-capitalists and the like.
It is not fair to say they are enemies. They are most certainly comrades. But comrades who aim to stop what they can while they can. Things that are important to them.
Anyone who aims to attack human progress in the name of something as fuzzily defined as "nature" are not comrades of mine.


This is not to say that they are "anti worker" or "anti human", no. It is to say that do not wish to allow the destruction of the earth to continue, and to try and defend what is left of the earth from capitalism.
What is left of the earth? I wasn't aware that our planet was shrinking.


I am however for contantly advocating a new society, and organising, and working toward the revolution.
Good to hear.

[Bilan]

Jazzrat:


We rely on more fossil fuels because we don't use atomic energy.

...because we dont use alternative energy. It is debateable whether atomic energy is the best source of energy.


So you contend that the ELF are more likely to weigh up the pros and cons of current thinking on a subject rather than simply go in for one that makes it seem like industrial progress is some kind of bogeyman?

Sure, why not? Just because they dont put humans aren't "the center of the universe" to them doesn't necessarily mean that they'll act without thinking.


If we can create new forests why is whether or not a forest is "old growth" actually matter, beyond sentimentality?

What's the point? If we can get what we need (and more) from what we have now, why shouldn't we? It shouldn't just be up to those who want to make energy to decide the fate of such issues. Nor should it be up to just "the greenies".


Vital to whom? Us or some animals? Give specific examples of such ecosystems. As for habitats: the habitats of which animals, and what do those animals contribute to human wellbeing? Water ways can be filtered before consumption by people, although it would be a good idea to keep any edible fish alive as well.

Even if it is to "some animals" does that not matter? Sure, you may not (you personally, that is) value animals highly, but surely that doesn't mean you can just senselessly destory their habitats simply in the name of "progress". surely it should be more thought out than that.


Maybe the ELF can be helpful, but the ALF? A blatantly anti-human organisation (opposing vivisection for example)!

Well, as you said earlier "The thing with scientists defining it is that science doesn't function like a religion, we don't have high priests telling us infallible facts we have people making educated guesses.". This also applies to vivisection. You do have to weigh up both sides of the arguement on vivisection. And personally, I am against it, and I am for scientific experiment, and futher exploration to find better scientic experimentation that is more accurate and has less unnecessary deaths.


Anyone who aims to attack human progress in the name of something as fuzzily defined as "nature" are not comrades of mine.

As I said, from what I've gathered, most wish to stop unnecessary destruction (such as logging of old growth forests) which is under the banner of "human progress".


What is left of the earth? I wasn't aware that our planet was shrinking.

<_<

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 20, 2007 12:01 pm
...because we dont use alternative energy. It is debateable whether atomic energy is the best source of energy.
Most renewable energy generation simply doesn&#39;t generate enough. There is another thread for this if you want to start a debate on the pros and cons of nuclear energy.


Sure, why not? Just because they dont put humans aren&#39;t "the center of the universe" to them doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that they&#39;ll act without thinking.
Most of what I&#39;ve seen from them points at the idea that they&#39;ll attack anything progressive if there is even a whiff of controversy to it. They don&#39;t strike me as overly rational.


hat&#39;s the point? If we can get what we need (and more) from what we have now, why shouldn&#39;t we? It shouldn&#39;t just be up to those who want to make energy to decide the fate of such issues. Nor should it be up to just "the greenies".
Why shouldn&#39;t it just be up to those who want to make energy? THey&#39;re the ones who are getting the best use out of it.


Even if it is to "some animals" does that not matter? Sure, you may not (you personally, that is) value animals highly, but surely that doesn&#39;t mean you can just senselessly destory their habitats simply in the name of "progress". surely it should be more thought out than that.
It is. Don&#39;t strawman - I&#39;m not proposing that we "senselessly destroy habitats" I&#39;m just proposing that we don&#39;t take into account any animals that are using the land unless they are useful to humans, "destruction" has to be thought over though, once something is destroyed humans won&#39;t be able to use it again.


Well, as you said earlier "The thing with scientists defining it is that science doesn&#39;t function like a religion, we don&#39;t have high priests telling us infallible facts we have people making educated guesses.". This also applies to vivisection. You do have to weigh up both sides of the arguement on vivisection. And personally, I am against it, and I am for scientific experiment, and futher exploration to find better scientic experimentation that is more accurate and has less unnecessary deaths.
What makes you assume I haven&#39;t weighed up the pros and cons of vivisection? A lot of our best developments can and have come from vivisection. I obviously don&#39;t support it for tests on things we have already developed to a point it&#39;s safe to test them on humans or for cosmetics.


As I said, from what I&#39;ve gathered, most wish to stop unnecessary destruction (such as logging of old growth forests) which is under the banner of "human progress".
...and this is unacceptable. They stand in the way of progress ergo they are the enemies of progressives.



What is left of the earth? I wasn&#39;t aware that our planet was shrinking.

<_<
Well, you made a ridiculous statement first.

[Bilan]

Ignore this post. It was an accident.

[Bilan]

Jazzrat:


Most renewable energy generation simply doesn&#39;t generate enough. There is another thread for this if you want to start a debate on the pros and cons of nuclear energy.

I dont wish to start a debate on it, I was just trying to clear up what I meant.


Why shouldn&#39;t it just be up to those who want to make energy? THey&#39;re the ones who are getting the best use out of it.

Because if the land belongs to the community, it should be up to the community as a whole to decide the fate of it, not just a few (that is, in reference to a post revolutionary society, of course).


It is. Don&#39;t strawman - I&#39;m not proposing that we "senselessly destroy habitats" I&#39;m just proposing that we don&#39;t take into account any animals that are using the land unless they are useful to humans, "destruction" has to be thought over though, once something is destroyed humans won&#39;t be able to use it again.

I&#39;m not entirely sure what strawmaning is...

Anyway, I wasn&#39;t suggesting you were. I was outlining what the ELF is opposed to and the basis of many of their actions; and (in regards to things such as logging) does lead to "the senseless destruction of habitats" when it does to much, as it is now.


What makes you assume I haven&#39;t weighed up the pros and cons of vivisection? A lot of our best developments can and have come from vivisection. I obviously don&#39;t support it for tests on things we have already developed to a point it&#39;s safe to test them on humans or for cosmetics.

apologies, I wasn&#39;t suggesting you hadn&#39;t &#39;weighed up the pros and cons&#39; as such, I was just making reference to your previous statement about science (which I quoted) and showing it&#39;s relation to vivisection.


As I said, from what I&#39;ve gathered, most wish to stop unnecessary destruction (such as logging of old growth forests) which is under the banner of "human progress".

...and this is unacceptable. They stand in the way of progress ergo they are the enemies of progressives.

How is unnecessary destruction "progressive"?



What is left of the earth? I wasn&#39;t aware that our planet was shrinking.

<_<

Well, you made a ridiculous statement first.

Myes, well I meant to say of the "natrual earth" such as ancient growth forests, and the like.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 20, 2007 01:09 pm
Because if the land belongs to the community, it should be up to the community as a whole to decide the fate of it, not just a few (that is, in reference to a post revolutionary society, of course).

What if the "community" decide on something hopelessly inefficient which would cause a sharp decrease in the energy available to them and a possible collapse of society? Technical expertise is needed to make decisions of that kind.


I&#39;m not entirely sure what strawmaning is...
To create an argument that is weaker than your opponent&#39;s actual argument and then claim that it is what the opponent is arguing.


Anyway, I wasn&#39;t suggesting you were. I was outlining what the ELF is opposed to and the basis of many of their actions; and (in regards to things such as logging) does lead to "the senseless destruction of habitats" when it does to much, as it is now.
Great for them, but why do they hold the animals that are losing habitat in higher esteem than the people who stand to gain resources from this habitat?


apologies, I wasn&#39;t suggesting you hadn&#39;t &#39;weighed up the pros and cons&#39; as such, I was just making reference to your previous statement about science (which I quoted) and showing it&#39;s relation to vivisection.
I don&#39;t quite see the relevance, unless you&#39;re arguing that I was viewing the scientists as "high priests" and as such hadn&#39;t weighed up the pros and cons.


How is unnecessary destruction "progressive"?
When did I say it was?


Myes, well I meant to say of the "natrual earth" such as ancient growth forests, and the like.
What&#39;s special about the resources that are being consumed? Do they carry any intrinsic value for being old?

[socialistfuture]

coal is murder, coal is death join the ELF..

nah but seriously, peeps i know tend to support them. they seemed to be pretty linked with the ALF style wise and tactics etc. they both are anti capitalist generally tho not exclusively and very Direct Action based on the more extreme end. they almost seem like a guerilla army sometimes (camo, balaclavas..explovies, arson, sneaking in the night..)

I think they are right in that the destruction of the earth, the natural world and the scale and the speed requires such groups to exist.
I&#39;ll read more what people wrote and add more coments.

:ph34r: go sneaky ninjas and save the animals and protect earth..

[socialistfuture]

there&#39;s no way around the fact that any group with it&#39;s priorities outside and even contradictory to those of humanity are patently reactionary to the progression of human society, which I see as my prime objective as a communist.

Thus they&#39;re no comrades of mine. I&#39;m all for sustainable development, no question about it

is species extinction sustainable development to you? could you define what u mean by the term sustainable development- i would think it is rather obvious that western civilization is not sustainable (and there has been no sustainable communist society yet to exist).
when you say humanity do you mean only people who value humans ABOVE all else?

in what way is the ELF reactionary?

[socialistfuture]

the reason earth first&#33; started was because a lot of mainstream groups like greenpeace, WWF were to friendly to corporations and buisness. they were part of the problem in the end if they could not do their stated iintention which was to preserve wildlife, wildnerness and cut pollution levels.

the ELF came later, basically there were mainstream environmental groups that were becoming part of the establishment. it is rather clear that the ELF most definatly is not.


According to their former press office they are a network which uses &#39;economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment&#39;. Now, an environmentalist group I&#39;d support might have put it a wee bit differently, say to stop dangerous overexploitation and destruction of vital parts of the environment. That would even make sense&#33;

And once again, I&#39;m sure there are a few decent fellows who associate with the group. But the message the network is sending isn&#39;t decent at all. The bulk of &#39;ELF&#39;, or those most visible at least, are like I said clearly not primarily concerned about the wellbeing of the human species.

Instead they focus on protecting the &#39;natural&#39; environment ie trying to minimise human impact on theenvironment, be it good or bad for us (impact which is permanently malicious to the environment in a way that we know it&#39;ll damage us more in the long run, than it benefits us temporarily is &#39;bad&#39;).

I disagree with such intentions.

they are trying to minimise corporate plunder, extinctions and exploitation (in the case of earth first&#33; that includes exploitation to people- ie domination by multinational corporations).

I think a lot of what you say is on reputation, ie you dont actually know that much about the ELF, its goals and reasoning. you should back up your accusations as well.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:41 pm

there&#39;s no way around the fact that any group with it&#39;s priorities outside and even contradictory to those of humanity are patently reactionary to the progression of human society, which I see as my prime objective as a communist.

Thus they&#39;re no comrades of mine. I&#39;m all for sustainable development, no question about it

is species extinction sustainable development to you?
Well, if the species is not human or useful to humans then yes, of course.


could you define what u mean by the term sustainable development- i would think it is rather obvious that western civilization is not sustainable (and there has been no sustainable communist society yet to exist).
A technocracy. I*&#39;d go into specifics but there are plenty of threads around that explain it.


when you say humanity do you mean only people who value humans ABOVE all else?
No, I mean all of it. No matter how cack their ideas are.


in what way is the ELF reactionary?
You joined late didn&#39;t you, it&#39;s been explained numerous times.

[socialistfuture]

I think there is real caricaturing of enviromentalists/environmenal movements going on here and some plain old ignorance. earth first&#33; has been around for sum time now in many countries, so its obviously been quite diverse. Dave Foreman is no longer in it, so quoting him to slam current groups is stupid.

a lot of the old school of EF&#33; were quite redneck and got annoyed when EF&#33; started being more anticapitalist and having strong anarchist influences.

some other current groups are sea shepard and rising tide, and in britain there is the yearly camp for climate action. tho sea shepard i cant claim is anti capitalist it is staunch and non comprimise.

http://risingtide.org.uk/
http://www.risingtide.org.au/
http://risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpres...ory/front-page/ (http://risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpress/category/front-page/)

http://www.seashepherd.org/

or for anyone who wants to learn more about the ELF http://www.earthliberationfront.com/

[socialistfuture]

id still like t now why u think they are reactionary

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:10 pm
id still like t now why u think they are reactionary
They&#39;re a bunch of spoilt middle class tree-huggers who oppose progress and, by the looks of it, love Al Gore.


a lot of the old school of EF&#33; were quite redneck and got annoyed when EF&#33; started being more anticapitalist and having strong anarchist influences.

Being anti-capitalist is by no means necessarily progressive. Indeed, most so-called &#39;anti-capitalism&#39; today is reactionary.

[socialistfuture]

They are the polar opposite to us technocrats.
in some sense you are quite true there is a real primitist strain that is attracted to ELF type stuff. like the green anarchy (zine) crew.

and also that technocracy is very elitist and authoritarian whearas ELF is very decentralised. tho the ELF is not quite primitist because some use (well ALF..) scanners and quite high tech gadgets.

yeh there is a spirituality thing with ELF sometimes. earth is sacred, respect nature etc.

[socialistfuture]

a lil history on earth first:


Earth First&#33; is portrayed as having gone through three separate waves in its history. EF&#33; started as �rednecks for wilderness,� prioritizing biocentrism and direct action, while dismissing the patriarchy and racism that reared its head during this time. The late 1980s ushered in the second wave, often characterized by Judi Bari and her focus on nonviolence (including discouraging property destruction) and building coalitions with loggers and other workers. The third wave began in the mid-to-late 1990s. It was represented by the green anarchists within EF&#33;�the same folks you might have found in the black bloc. Idols were toppled, and anarchist values were implemented much more thoroughly throughout the movement.

http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/index.php...fc2b2a1d74ddc89 (http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=02349474773b01d4bfc2b2a1d74ddc 89)

[Bilan]

Jazzrat:


What if the "community" decide on something hopelessly inefficient which would cause a sharp decrease in the energy available to them and a possible collapse of society? Technical expertise is needed to make decisions of that kind.

It is unlikely that a community would be deprived of technical experitise. And it is even more likely that the community deciding on something that failed (which seems odd if all evidence is fairly presented) would lead to the "collapse of society". That is indeed unrealistic.
Technical expertise is not something we should be deprived of, and in no way would be if the community were to make the decision.


I&#39;m not entirely sure what strawmaning is...

To create an argument that is weaker than your opponent&#39;s actual argument and then claim that it is what the opponent is arguing.

Thank you for clearing that up.


Great for them, but why do they hold the animals that are losing habitat in higher esteem than the people who stand to gain resources from this habitat?
They don&#39;t, necessarily. They (and I&#39;m being general here) would object to needlessly destorying a habitat, not progress.
If we have the resources we need (which we do) and even more so than we need, why then would we destory a habitat to gain resources if we dont need them?


Myes, well I meant to say of the "natrual earth" such as ancient growth forests, and the like.

What&#39;s special about the resources that are being consumed? Do they carry any intrinsic value for being old?

To some, yes. I see no point in needlessly destorying the earth. Old growth forests are beautiful, amazing places. That are home to many different species. Each is unique. There is no reason why we should destory them without good reason. Turning the country into a concrete jungle is unnecessary. We should make use of what we have (which is a fucking huge amount) and if need be, take what we need. So that every person is fed, clothed, sheltered and has the ability to a life full of oppurtunity and liberty.

[Bilan]

Vanguard1917


They&#39;re a bunch of spoilt middle class tree-huggers who oppose progress and, by the looks of it, love Al Gore.

That&#39;s a bullshit arguement full of assumptions.

[socialistfuture]

its not like lots of leftists aren&#39;t spoilt, white and middle class...

personally the ALF and ELF seem like clandestine guerilla&#39;s in many ways. where did the anti human thing come from? how many humans have they destroyed?

targeting SUVs is surely anti corporate. the ELF wld never remove capitalism on its own, neither would monkey wrenching, but they are attacks on a destructive system and they are being hit back hard. they are on the frontline. halting the damages of capitalism is very important.

one person connected with the ELF is Craig Rosebraugh

Craig Rosebraugh is an environmental activist who has been associated with the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and who has served as a spokesman for both groups&#39; press office.


Rosebraugh owned and operated a vegan bakery in Portland, Oregon, to which ELF and ALF members would anonymously send claims for direct action events. Upon receiving such a claim, Rosebraugh would judge its authenticity, then issue a press release on his website, www.earthliberationfront.com which was started in January 2001 [1]. Information was delivered via anonymous remailers encrypted with Rosebraugh&#39;s PGP key, and through paper letters hand delivered or mailed to the bakery&#39;s address. Rosebraugh denied any direct involvement in the organizations and claimed to have no knowledge of the identity of those who sent messages.........
Since 1997, Rosebraugh has received more than seven subpoenas to appear before grand juries to discuss his sources, but he has said he has no knowledge of them. He was ordered to appear before a federal grand jury on April 18, 2001, which was investigating the fire bombing of Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) in Eugene, Oregon.
......................
Rosebraugh later resigned his position as spokesman for the organizations as a result of FBI surveillance. Despite the seizure of his computer equipment; searches of his business, person, and home; grand jury investigations; and FBI questioning, he did not reveal the identities of members of the movements.

Although not advocating violence against people, Rosebraugh has supported the destruction of property activities, online sabotage, and the occupation of financial centers in the United States. He has also advocated urban rioting in the U.S. and shutting down the media, specifically:

"Using any means necessary, shut down the national networks of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. Not just occupations but actually engage in strategies and tactics which knock the networks off the air."

He advocates guerrilla tactics:

"[S]trike hard and fast and retreat in anonymity. Select another location, strike again hard and fast and quickly retreat in anonymity."

And when asked by a congressional subcommittee whether he feared an ELF action could one day kill someone, he answered:

"No, I am more concerned with massive numbers of people dying at the hands of greedy capitalists if such actions are not taken." [3]

In 2003, his organization, Arissa, released a book entitled The Logic of Political Violence. The book examines the role that political violence has played in social justice struggles in the twentieth century, and concludes that a revolution which employs a diversity of tactics (including political violence) is needed in the United States.

Arissa&#39;s website states that their primary goal is to create a political and social revolution in the United States of America.

http://www.arissamediagroup.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Rosebraugh

he has a website at http://www.craigrosebraugh.com/

[Gandhigirl00]

Dave Foreman had a clear intention when starting Earth First&#33; He believed that their radical movement would make other groups like the Sierra Club (who used to be considered radical) appear to be more moderate and would be taken more seriously. He also felt that their actions would help make the environment more of an issue in the public discourse like the way that other radical groups have done with their issues. The argument that anything that environmentalists claim is anti-human is very ignorant. It&#39;s not anti-human it&#39;s non-anthropocentric meaning that they don&#39;t believe that humans have a superior claim to life over all other species. Having a smaller less-consumptive less-wasteful population is better for all humans, it&#39;s a utilitarian argument which is what I thought communism was only that it just thinks about humans. All value is based on how an organism fits into the ecosystem and what they contribute; humans contribute nothing and dominate and domesticate all in capitalism as well as communism. You create a hierarchy of beings which leaves open space and has for a hierarchy of humans. All environmental domination and destruction is intimately tied to the domination and enslavement of different peoples. By the way when someone is termed "radical" which all members of these groups are, it means they want revolution and not reform. The people working within the system or following system guidelines are simply doing so in order to preserve as much biodiversity as possible until the inevitable collapse so that maybe we can survive. More info on the anarchist leanings of the movement can be viewed on this website:
http://www.greenanarchy.info/

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 22, 2007 07:34 am
It is unlikely that a community would be deprived of technical experitise. And it is even more likely that the community deciding on something that failed (which seems odd if all evidence is fairly presented) would lead to the "collapse of society". That is indeed unrealistic.
Technical expertise is not something we should be deprived of, and in no way would be if the community were to make the decision.
Even in our current elitist system the people with a technical expertise are often shouted down or out-voted by people who are being frightfully illogical in their decision making. However there are a number of ways around that so I guess this argument doesn&#39;t matter too much. Just remember any decrease in energy produced would be disastrous in a post-capitalist society.


They don&#39;t, necessarily. They (and I&#39;m being general here) would object to needlessly destorying a habitat, not progress.
If we have the resources we need (which we do) and even more so than we need, why then would we destory a habitat to gain resources if we dont need them?

THat&#39;s fine and sensible, but not entirely true from the actions of ELF and EF&#33; While I&#39;m sure a lot of them are rational about it there will always be a number who attempt to kill innocent workers (tree spiking would be an excellent example of this.).


To some, yes. I see no point in needlessly destorying the earth. Old growth forests are beautiful, amazing places.

So the first reason is sentimental?


That are home to many different species. Each is unique. There is no reason why we should destory them without good reason.

It all depends on how you define good reason.


Turning the country into a concrete jungle is unnecessary. We should make use of what we have (which is a fucking huge amount) and if need be, take what we need.

We should work towards eradicating scarcity, this will mean consuming more resources to produce an abundance.


So that every person is fed, clothed, sheltered and has the ability to a life full of oppurtunity and liberty.

That will require a lot of energy, and that energy must come from somewhere.

Gandhigirl00


Dave Foreman had a clear intention when starting Earth First&#33; He believed that their radical movement would make other groups like the Sierra Club (who used to be considered radical) appear to be more moderate and would be taken more seriously. He also felt that their actions would help make the environment more of an issue in the public discourse like the way that other radical groups have done with their issues. The argument that anything that environmentalists claim is anti-human is very ignorant. It&#39;s not anti-human it&#39;s non-anthropocentric meaning that they don&#39;t believe that humans have a superior claim to life over all other species. Having a smaller less-consumptive less-wasteful population is better for all humans, it&#39;s a utilitarian argument which is what I thought communism was only that it just thinks about humans. All value is based on how an organism fits into the ecosystem and what they contribute; humans contribute nothing and dominate and domesticate all in capitalism as well as communism. You create a hierarchy of beings which leaves open space and has for a hierarchy of humans. All environmental domination and destruction is intimately tied to the domination and enslavement of different peoples. By the way when someone is termed "radical" which all members of these groups are, it means they want revolution and not reform. The people working within the system or following system guidelines are simply doing so in order to preserve as much biodiversity as possible until the inevitable collapse so that maybe we can survive. More info on the anarchist leanings of the movement can be viewed on this website:
http://www.greenanarchy.info/

STOP&#33;
GRAMMAR TIME&#33;

Now, on with the claptrap:


Dave Foreman had a clear intention when starting Earth First&#33; He believed that their radical movement would make other groups like the Sierra Club (who used to be considered radical) appear to be more moderate and would be taken more seriously.

Wow, so he was a cynical bastard. Do all Earth First&#33;ers know that they&#39;re simply being used to make other groups look good? Although it would explain the violent anti-worker actions.


He also felt that their actions would help make the environment more of an issue in the public discourse like the way that other radical groups have done with their issues.

I think government scare-mongering and middle-class busy-bodying is doing more for "environmentalism" of the kind you seem to be in favour of.


The argument that anything that environmentalists claim is anti-human is very ignorant.

Well, let&#39;s be glad that no one is making that argument. I&#39;ve explained the concept of a strawman argument to bite the hand, do you think you can grasp it too?


It&#39;s not anti-human it&#39;s non-anthropocentric meaning that they don&#39;t believe that humans have a superior claim to life over all other species. Having a smaller less-consumptive less-wasteful population is better for all humans, it&#39;s a utilitarian argument which is what I thought communism was only that it just thinks about humans.

"It&#39;s not anti-human, it&#39;s non-anthropocentric" :lol: Yeah, so it&#39;s not pro-human either and a lot of their actions go directly against human interests, so...

Now you&#39;ve gone off at the deep end of environmental nutbaggery when you start demanding a smaller population that consumes less. How do you want to make it smaller? Some popular methods include - mass-slaughter (try the pol pot way with this one), genocide (Concentration camps, ethnic cleansing operations and the like will work here) or mass-sterilisation (this one might take some time, so maybe making sure you thin the population with one of the other methods would be a good idea). None of those ideas particularly appeal to me, maybe it&#39;s because I&#39;m a little too anthropocentric. As for less consumption - as an anarchist could you justify using coercion to prevent someone consuming something or do you think that people will magically stop wanting to use computers, cars, televisions or whatever just because you asked nicely. Maybe you&#39;ll take the EF&#33; route and make sure people are too scared of a bunch of enviro-psychos attacking them.

"it&#39;s a utilitarian argument which is what I thought communism was only that it just thinks about humans"

ERROR: Sentence is fucking weird, cannot parse. Please adjust structure.


All value is based on how an organism fits into the ecosystem and what they contribute; humans contribute nothing and dominate and domesticate all in capitalism as well as communism.

On what grounds do you think of value in that way? Your thinking is far too biocentric for me to begin to just guess at your thought process, so could I have it in full?


You create a hierarchy of beings which leaves open space and has for a hierarchy of humans.

You must have been up all night greasing that slope (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html). You&#39;re essentially arguing that any hierarchy will lead to one amongst humans, without giving a logical reason as to why.


All environmental domination and destruction is intimately tied to the domination and enslavement of different peoples.

No, no it isn&#39;t. I eat chickens, chickens are lesser. I do not supporting enslaving any human being, humans are equal. I hope that&#39;s spelled out for you?


By the way when someone is termed "radical" which all members of these groups are, it means they want revolution and not reform.

No it doesn&#39;t. It just means they have views that are removed from the mainstream in certain areas - that&#39;s why you can have radical MPs and the like.


The people working within the system or following system guidelines are simply doing so in order to preserve as much biodiversity as possible until the inevitable collapse so that maybe we can survive.

What "inevitable" collapse?


More info on the anarchist leanings of the movement can be viewed on this website:
http://www.greenanarchy.info/

:lol: :lol: :lol: green anarchy. Oh dear. What do you think of primitivism by the way?

[socialistfuture]

i think many aspects of it are a lot better than a 1984 style police Surveillance state.

primitivism is inspired by native american Indian and indigenous resistance, which should be supported big time.

[Gandhigirl00]

In response to Jazzratt&#39;s brilliant words of wisdom that have inspired me to continue on my quest to comprehend the depths of a human&#39;s belief in false reality:

Foreman did attempt to use the legal route before he started Earth First&#33;. He was a lobbyist for several years. He contributed to RARE II in which scientists and other specialists proposed what areas in the national lands should remain roadless. They were almost completely ignored. Then you acknowledge that moderate people are taken more seriously now.

What scare mongering are you referring to? Are you referring to the government terming ELF and EF&#33; as ecoterrorists and giving them the maximum sentences for doing things like setting hummers on fire to let those radicals know that they need to stop trying to save the earth and start conforming?

When did I ever demand a smaller population that consumes less? I simply stated that it would be better for every human and every other living organism if we had that. I didn&#39;t call for any of the "civilized" things that you referred to including coercion. The world would be a lot better place when humans stop causing mass extinctions and stop dominating and oppressing "other" humans and "other" species. You&#39;re also forgetting what I stated about the collapse. We&#39;re not trying to force anyone to do anything, only doing everything in our power to save enough wildlands in order to regenerate after the collapse. The lessening of the population will be a direct result of the inherent flaws within civilization, not the actions of environmentalists or anarchists. The things you&#39;re referring to will probably happen if humans continue to live the way they do which makes it interesting that we&#39;re the only ones trying to prevent that, but we&#39;re not pro-human. After the collapse, there&#39;s a chance that humans will remember their place within the ecosystem, and then they will give up all those wonderful things you mentioned for a natural, sustainable way of living without coercion.

By the way, it&#39;s ecocentric, not biocentric. The value of every organism is based on its part in the proper ecological functioning of the earth allowing for the continuation of as many species as possible that are only limited by natural processes, not how well they serve human wants and desires.

I&#39;m wondering which "human interests" you&#39;re referring to. Isn&#39;t the number one human interest survival? Maybe I&#39;m missing something here but I thought that things like oxygen, clean water, fertile soil, and things of that nature were essential to our survival. Therefore by fighting to protect those things and the ecological functions of our planet, they are fighting to save the human species. They are not fighting to get rid of the human species they are fighting the anthropocentric, human chauvinistic way of life that we have chosen. By anti-worker do you mean anti-slave which every human and every other living organism is under capitalism and communism? They put warnings on all the trees that they spike and haven&#39;t killed a single human. How many people did Stalin kill? What about Castro?

How do you know you&#39;re superior to a chicken? Is it because you have the ability to dominate and oppress it? Okay, so capitalism is superior to communism, white people are superior to black people, men are superior to women, Europeans are superior to Africans and South Americans, rich people are superior to poor people, and humans are superior to nature. In your argument, you proved me right. I&#39;m not assuming anything. I&#39;m stating that since the beginning of civilization every time there has been a hierarchy of species, there has been a hierarchy of people. It all started with agriculture. If you feel like you have a right to make the entirety of another species&#39; life from birth to death about serving about being your slave, why not do it to "other" humans? That&#39;s what the dominant people have done since the beginning of civilization.

So all people are equal, but the only valid arguments are the ones that follow the scientific method, Western logic, and English grammar. I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t get the humor in that because you don&#39;t know anything about social theory or understand the concepts of green anarchy. The definition I provided for radical can easily be found in most social theory like feminism for example. Maybe you should look up ecofeminism which intimately ties the hierarchy among beings to the hierarchy within society through patriarchy.

The inevitable collapse. I would recommend that you read The Culture of Extinction by Frederic Bender or anything by John Zerzan. It might enlighten you on the current state of the earth, but then again, you might be too manipulated in to believing that as a human you have a "right" to life and will never go extinct. So basically according to your wonderful reasoning, I should just sit back enjoy my car, computer, etc. and expect technology to save my ass when everything runs out. Okay, sure thing.

Wow I made my whole argument without pointing out any of your grammatical errors. Also according to logic, all Gloogs are Glogs, and that&#39;s the kind of reasoning I want to use in deciding how to live my life.

[apathy maybe]

Just a quick response to Jazzratt&#39;s comments. Please explain how property destruction is 1) violent and 2) anti-worker (after all, when you destroy things, you create jobs&#33;).

[Bilan]

Jazzrat


Even in our current elitist system the people with a technical expertise are often shouted down or out-voted by people who are being frightfully illogical in their decision making. However there are a number of ways around that so I guess this argument doesn&#39;t matter too much. Just remember any decrease in energy produced would be disastrous in a post-capitalist society.

Well, we can&#39;t be exactly suprised by that. Most people are shouted down in this system by one powerful group or another. That includes environmentalists.

But I agree with the latter part of your post.


THat&#39;s fine and sensible, but not entirely true from the actions of ELF and EF&#33; While I&#39;m sure a lot of them are rational about it there will always be a number who attempt to kill innocent workers (tree spiking would be an excellent example of this.).

Of course, but thats typical of all groups. Whether environmentalists, anarchists, communists, etc, etc. There&#39;s always the possiblity of a small group of people making everyone look like thugs.


It all depends on how you define good reason.

Well, in regards to what I said, reason that incorporates the views of all people, and that weighs up the pro&#39;s and cons of the action taking, deciding whether it is entirely necessary that that action be taken, and whether there is an alternative that is more suitable.


We should work towards eradicating scarcity, this will mean consuming more resources to produce an abundance.

we should, in my opinion, what we need, and what we desire, but not to the point of ridiculous. And that point exists. If we have an abundance of food going to waste, what point does that serve?
We should ensure all people are fed, and such, and that all are satisfied.


That will require a lot of energy, and that energy must come from somewhere.

Indeed, that is why it is of absolute necesstiy that we find the best place for this to come from&#33;

[Jazzratt]

socialistfucker


i think many aspects of it are a lot better than a 1984 style police Surveillance state.

That&#39;s irrelevant, no one here is proposing a "1984 police Surveillance[sic] state".


primitivism is inspired by native american Indian and indigenous resistance, which should be supported big time.

Small quibble with your post; it&#39;s utter cack. The Native American Indians were not averse to technology, in fact they were perfectly happy to pick up rifles, learn to ride horses and otherwise make good use of available technology. It&#39;s quite insulting and patronising to imply that they here in favour of staying in a technological dark age.

gandhigirl00, who has now learned the magic of paragraphs.


In response to Jazzratt&#39;s brilliant words of wisdom that have inspired me to continue on my quest to comprehend the depths of a human&#39;s belief in false reality:

Not only paragraphs but crude attempts and humorous/sneering mockery.


Foreman did attempt to use the legal route before he started Earth First&#33;. He was a lobbyist for several years. He contributed to RARE II in which scientists and other specialists proposed what areas in the national lands should remain roadless. They were almost completely ignored. Then you acknowledge that moderate people are taken more seriously now.

What Foreman did prior to Earth First&#33; is neither here nor there - fact is that he still founded it and it is still an anti-human organisation. Also just because moderates are taken more seriously does not mean they are right.


What scare mongering are you referring to? Are you referring to the government terming ELF and EF&#33; as ecoterrorists and giving them the maximum sentences for doing things like setting hummers on fire to let those radicals know that they need to stop trying to save the earth and start conforming?

No I&#39;m referring to how right-wing groups, like green anarchists, tend to leap on to the latest environmental fear bandwagon and not get off. Whilst I&#39;m opposed to how the government treats ELF and EF&#33; it&#39;s not out of any love for either group - it&#39;s because I know that they will start doing the same to leftists as well.


When did I ever demand a smaller population that consumes less? I simply stated that it would be better for every human and every other living organism if we had that. I didn&#39;t call for any of the "civilized" things that you referred to including coercion. The world would be a lot better place when humans stop causing mass extinctions and stop dominating and oppressing "other" humans and "other" species. You&#39;re also forgetting what I stated about the collapse. We&#39;re not trying to force anyone to do anything, only doing everything in our power to save enough wildlands in order to regenerate after the collapse. The lessening of the population will be a direct result of the inherent flaws within civilization, not the actions of environmentalists or anarchists. The things you&#39;re referring to will probably happen if humans continue to live the way they do which makes it interesting that we&#39;re the only ones trying to prevent that, but we&#39;re not pro-human. After the collapse, there&#39;s a chance that humans will remember their place within the ecosystem, and then they will give up all those wonderful things you mentioned for a natural, sustainable way of living without coercion.

So you are not trying to bring about a state of affairs you feel is desirable? If it is better for "every human" (I presume you mean those that survive your primitivist nutfuckery) and "every other living organism" (who gives a shit about them?) then why don&#39;t you want it to come to pass? Is it because you realise that attempting to make it so is morally reprehensible? I know you didn&#39;t call for the methods, I was merely pointing out the only possible way of making your "better" situation come to pass. Yes the world would be a better place if humans stopped oppressing other humans, but how we interact with non-human organisms is entirely moot - in fact I would say a world without smoky bacon is worse than one with.

"The collapse" is just part of your primitivist mythology - it is, if you will, your secular rapture. I see no difference between you making sure things will "regenerate after the collapse" and fundies trying to "save people" for the rapture.

Bollocks are you trying to "prevent it", you&#39;re doing no such fucking thing - you&#39;re sitting on your middle-class arses pretending that looking after the "rights" of some pissant animals.

As for your utopian bullshit it&#39;s just that, bullshit. We have long since transcended our "place" and have moved on to greater things. Even if we do get set back we will develop again, the only thing that will stop us changing the environment around us would be out and out extinction.


By the way, it&#39;s ecocentric, not biocentric. The value of every organism is based on its part in the proper ecological functioning of the earth allowing for the continuation of as many species as possible that are only limited by natural processes, not how well they serve human wants and desires.

Bollocks they are. If they&#39;re not useful to us we have no compunction to keep them alive, so fuck &#39;em.


I&#39;m wondering which "human interests" you&#39;re referring to. Isn&#39;t the number one human interest survival? Maybe I&#39;m missing something here but I thought that things like oxygen, clean water, fertile soil, and things of that nature were essential to our survival. Therefore by fighting to protect those things and the ecological functions of our planet, they are fighting to save the human species. They are not fighting to get rid of the human species they are fighting the anthropocentric, human chauvinistic way of life that we have chosen. By anti-worker do you mean anti-slave which every human and every other living organism is under capitalism and communism? They put warnings on all the trees that they spike and haven&#39;t killed a single human. How many people did Stalin kill? What about Castro?

Yes, anthropocentric factions do attempt to keep the earth inhabitable by humans, but anything that isn&#39;t directly useful to us had best learn how to survive on it&#39;s own without our help or even with us hindering it. Anyone that fights anthropocentrism is fighting leftism, anybody that is fighting leftism is fighting against the interests of humanity so they can fuck off.

People are slaves under communism are they? What kind of leftist are you? Stalin: Death tolls will not ever be established properly. Castro: I don&#39;t know. Why are either of them relevant to this discussion?


How do you know you&#39;re superior to a chicken? Is it because you have the ability to dominate and oppress it? Okay, so capitalism is superior to communism, white people are superior to black people, men are superior to women, Europeans are superior to Africans and South Americans, rich people are superior to poor people, and humans are superior to nature. In your argument, you proved me right. I&#39;m not assuming anything. I&#39;m stating that since the beginning of civilization every time there has been a hierarchy of species, there has been a hierarchy of people. It all started with agriculture. If you feel like you have a right to make the entirety of another species&#39; life from birth to death about serving about being your slave, why not do it to "other" humans? That&#39;s what the dominant people have done since the beginning of civilization.

I am superior to the chicken because my species is. My species is superior because we have developed civilisation. Capitalism is not in the interest of my species, nor is racism, sexism or national chauvinism. Nature doesn&#39;t exist, it is a human name of a human concept. I&#39;d say that the reason there has been human hierarchy for so long is because of the way the means of production have been arranged. Anyone can tell the difference between two species of animal, so any of your silly arguments that animal oppression leads to human oppression are just insulting.


So all people are equal, but the only valid arguments are the ones that follow the scientific method, Western logic, and English grammar.

Scientific method: Yes, any arguments about science need to follow this.

"Western" Logic: Any discussion needs to keep some level of logical consistency to it.

English grammar: Only if the argument is in English.


I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t get the humor in that because you don&#39;t know anything about social theory or understand the concepts of green anarchy.

I&#39;d take you more seriously if you understood class analysis of social relations. Also green anarchy is a load of bollocks.


The definition I provided for radical can easily be found in most social theory like feminism for example. Maybe you should look up ecofeminism which intimately ties the hierarchy among beings to the hierarchy within society through patriarchy.

That&#39;s neither here nor there, "radical" has a specific meaning and it is not a synonym for revolutionary. As for ecofeminism: you&#39;re having a laugh right, please for the love of fuck tell me you&#39;re having a laugh?

"I recognise that humans by virtue of their extelligence are more useful to me than any other animal, therefore I hate women."

What a load of bollocks based on a complete non sequitor.


The inevitable collapse. I would recommend that you read The Culture of Extinction by Frederic Bender or anything by John Zerzan.

I would recommend that you go fuck yourself. As for John Fucking Zerzan the sooner he pisses off to a forest and stops talking the better.


It might enlighten you on the current state of the earth, but then again, you might be too manipulated in to believing that as a human you have a "right" to life and will never go extinct. So basically according to your wonderful reasoning, I should just sit back enjoy my car, computer, etc. and expect technology to save my ass when everything runs out. Okay, sure thing.

I prefer to be "enlightened" by more scientific texts than the kind of shit you primmie whackjobs spew forth, sorry. Humans are unlikely to become extinct A) because we can adapt and B) because of our technology, without it we&#39;re just very badly designed apes. Thankfully your kind won&#39;t be here when we&#39;re exploring the stars.

Apathy_Maybe:


Just a quick response to Jazzratt&#39;s comments. Please explain how property destruction is 1) violent and 2) anti-worker (after all, when you destroy things, you create jobs&#33;).

1) Destruction is violence.

2) If you&#39;re attacking the Means of Production (rather than seizing it as part of a revolutionary action) you are prevent the worker that uses it from selling their labour power, they therefore cannot gain an income and you are therfore acting against their interests.

bite the hand:

Would you call our debate over, or do you have a pressing urge to continue it, only it&#39;s getting a little hectic on this thread?

[apathy maybe]

"1) Destruction is violence."
This is hardly the place to quibble about definitions, but I would say that violence can only occur against people (and perhaps other animals). Mere property destruction cannot and is not violent, because no one is getting harmed. This is why pacifists do not have a problem with it.

"2) If you&#39;re attacking the Means of Production (rather than seizing it as part of a revolutionary action) you are prevent the worker that uses it from selling their labour power, they therefore cannot gain an income and you are therfore acting against their interests."
While I accept your point in general, I&#39;m going to quibble about a lot of the sort of destruction that the ELF engage in. The destruction of SUV dealerships, for example, is not attacking the means of production at all. While it certainly may hurt the workers at the specific dealership (who are few I&#39;m sure), it is not generally "anti-worker". As well, often there exists "means of production" that don&#39;t actually employ workers, or if they do they are specialists who would not be that inconvenienced by the destruction of that.

[bcbm]

The Native American Indians were not averse to technology, in fact they were perfectly happy to pick up rifles, learn to ride horses and otherwise make good use of available technology.

The introduction of horses and, to a lesser extent rifles, actually allowed the Sioux (for one) to break away from a sedentary, agricultural existence and return to gathering-hunting as their primary means of survival, within one generation. ;)

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
The destruction of SUV dealerships, for example, is not attacking the means of production at all.
Yes it is. If those dealerships did not exist, there would be no way for those SUVs built to be distributed. Anyway, I have a question: would you support the ELF sabotaging a fishing fleet fishing for a species of fish that are endangered and thus putting roughly one hundred fishermen out of a job?

Also, note to many people: it&#39;s &#39;Jazzratt&#39;, not &#39;Jazzrat&#39;&#33;

[socialistfuture]

long live the ELF,
now

where is vanguards SUV...

[bcbm]

"2) If you&#39;re attacking the Means of Production (rather than seizing it as part of a revolutionary action) you are prevent the worker that uses it from selling their labour power, they therefore cannot gain an income and you are therfore acting against their interests."

Workers in struggle have often attacked the means of production directly, because they recognize it for what it currently is: property of their class enemy.

[Bilan]

Jazzrat:


Would you call our debate over, or do you have a pressing urge to
continue it, only it&#39;s getting a little hectic on this thread?

Yeah,I&#39;d say its over.

[Cult of Reason]

Jazzratt: I know you have not said this, but your comments can interpreted (possibly even by you) using the slippery slope fallacy thus:

Jazzratt says that animals useless to humans are expendable.

Therefore, Jazzratt says that there are some animals we know to be useless and/or that it is easy to determine this.

I would like to point out that the biosphere is an extremely complex system, and so it is very difficult to know what affect the loss of or reduction of a certains species in a certain area would have on that area, surrounding areas, and the entire biosphere.

Now, my memory of this is hazy, so what I am about to say might have been opposite in reality, but it is still instructive:

Increasing population near a fish-rich river led to an increase in fishing, so reducing the numbers of insectivorous fish. The rate of malaria in that area soared, as there were fewer fish to eat the malaria carrying mosquitos, increasing mosquito numbers and so the number of malaria infections.

More fishing --&#62; fewer insectivorous fish --&#62; fewer mosquitos eaten --&#62; more malaria carrying mosquitos --&#62; more malaria

5 steps. The fish were useful to humanity, so their reduction had an effect on humanity, but through 5 days. Reduction of livestock (for whatever reason) has a bad effect on humanity through one step. The point is that the loss or reduction of a species can have an important, but indirect, effect.


Just remember any decrease in energy produced would be disastrous in a post-capitalist society.

Not necessarily. The idea is not to produce huge amounts of useable energy, but sufficient for an abundance. That is, enough for everyone&#39;s needs or wants to be satisfied. If much more useable energy is being produces than consumed, then that is a gross waste of resources, and should be stopped so that the resources may be used in th future, for whatever reason. If overall consumption of electricity, say, decreases due to the introduction of a more efficient design of a domestic appliance, then it makes sense to, at least temporarily, reduce electricity production.


We should work towards eradicating scarcity, this will mean consuming more resources to produce an abundance.

Not necessarily. Information for North America is more complete so I will refer to that. In North America the capability to produce an abundance of goods and services hs existed since 1912. There has been artificial scarcity in NA for 100 years (whether by deliberately inefficient production practices, destruction of products, laying off workers and replacing 2 machines that produce too much with one, usually more cost efficient, machine that needs less human involvement but produces little enough for there still be a market etc.) for the purpose of keeping the Prices System (in the form of Capitalism) going.

In the case of Europe, I would assume that it has caught up to NA by now, with or without Russian oil (I have not come to a conclusion on this yet). Therefore, consumption of natural resources would, if anything, decrease after the system is in place.

[socialistfuture]

jazzrat please dont resort to petty insults, and why are you defending private property?

I guess if this is finished theres no need for summing up, tho I do imagine these debates will pop up again and again over time.

[Vanguard1917]

Increasing population near a fish-rich river led to an increase in fishing, so reducing the numbers of insectivorous fish. The rate of malaria in that area soared, as there were fewer fish to eat the malaria carrying mosquitos, increasing mosquito numbers and so the number of malaria infections.

More fishing --&#62; fewer insectivorous fish --&#62; fewer mosquitos eaten --&#62; more malaria carrying mosquitos --&#62; more malaria

5 steps. The fish were useful to humanity, so their reduction had an effect on humanity, but through 5 days. Reduction of livestock (for whatever reason) has a bad effect on humanity through one step. The point is that the loss or reduction of a species can have an important, but indirect, effect.

What would be the solution in such hypothetical situation? Would it be to retreat from the area in order to limit the impact of the people there?

Because we have better ways to deal with malaria-carrying mosquitoes than fish. Malaria was eradicated in Europe through mass economic and social development, and the use of insecticides. It was human ingenuity and technology which got rid of malaria. Insectivorous animals played a played a very negligible role, if they played any role at all.

The point is to master our natural environment, not to retreat from it.

[Vanguard1917]

The idea is not to produce huge amounts of useable energy, but sufficient for an abundance. That is, enough for everyone&#39;s needs or wants to be satisfied.

Yes, but around a third of the world&#39;s population (more than 2 billion people) does not have access to electricity. In order to meet the energy demands of a growing and more prosperous population, socialist society would need to massively increase energy supply.

Also bear in mind that the vast majority of energy waste comes from industry, not from households. Socialist society will waste less energy by, first and and foremost, making industrial production more efficient, resourceful and productive.

[Cult of Reason]

What would be the solution in such hypothetical situation? Would it be to retreat from the area in order to limit the impact of the people there?

You take it the wrong way. I am merely saying that determining whether an animal was useless to us is not a simple thing, as could be inferred from Jazzratt&#39;s posts, that is all. There are probably better examples than the one I used, but the point still stands: we are largely ignorant of the interactions of food webs, so caution should be exercised.


Yes, but around a third of the world&#39;s population (more than 2 billion people) does not have access to electricity. In order to meet the energy demands of a growing and more prosperous population, socialist society would need to massively increase energy supply.

I think it is unrealistic in the extreme to expect that Communism will be possible any time soon in areas that do not have abundant electricity production. Communism would most likely come first to those areas that are already industrialised.

[socialistfuture]

I think a good example of that is with the Maoists in Nepal where they have less power than in lots of areas. Just because you wage revolution doesnt mean you have more. Cuba scaled back, In Chile capital fled and things slowed down. Yes the Solviet Union went into massive development - at a great cost both socially and environmentally (from pollution, to Chernobyl. Mao declared war on some species without knowing what the effect in the larger web of life was.

And vanguard Europe has huge problems with pollution, depleted resources (so it gets many of them from the third world now instead), loss of ecosystems and population density.

Out of interest what western nation do you live in Vanguard? and have you ever been to the third world?