Environmentalism

[Hegemonicretribution]

I am guessing that us lefties are more environmentally friendly right?

I was thinking we would be faster to solve global warming issues faster. As we would not need to worry about loosing profit, compared to others, we could accept targets for cutting emissions.

We could cary out the research easier if we were communist because the cost would not be as important.

What are the rest of your views on issues such as animal testing, Hunting and deforestation?

Just looking at for some idea of whether or not the left are more eco friendly than the right.

[Pete]

Hunting is natural, Deforstation is acceptable, to a point. Cut what you need and replant them. Do not clear cut. Animal testing I have no opinion. As in I am a fence sitter. I have a book on the philosophy of environmentalism, I will give some exerpts later.

[Silent Eye]

I am very much an Environmentalist. Hunting serves no purpose whatsoever except to harm an animal. Unless the people are in dire need of food and have no other source, why cant they just go to the supermarket? If they can afford a gun, they can afford a piece of bacon!

And deforestation has gone out of hand. We should try to reforest areas and find another source for building material.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Pete I agree on the hunting point, as with most things. Silent Eye, I see your point, but the consumer culture only exists because of the capitalism. Things are nice and convenient, you don't see the nasty side. Hunting for sport only is kinda pointless, but if you eat what you kill then why not? The bacon as you said came from a piug, now sure the one we kill might get a shot in the head, but the one in the supermarkt has been prodden modified and confined all it's life, all so we can eat it.

That is wrong, at least in hunting they have a chance, however because of how far it has gone it is more complicated.

Deforestation I am totally against, it HAS gone past that point. We should be replanting, and only taking a percentage of what we replant not the other way around. We can't afford to do it forever anyway.

Animal testing, I am totally against for cosmetics, fuck the teen queens and their pretty little faces, it isn't neccessary. Test the products on those that will be using them, duh. Bodyshop is not the way either, I will post a link with an interesting article later tonight.

For medical use I haven't formed enough of a structured argument either way yet, but I will say some is unneccessary.

Any other issues as well, gas prices? Destruction of habbitat, over fishing etc? There is a lot of debate to be had.

[Pete]

Over fishing by forgien boats in the Grand Banks, obvioulsy Canadian waters (except the small corrodor granted to France in 1764), although America lays claim to them, has led to the collapse of the cod fishery and an economic down turn in the region. People are living in poverty, in some places with up wards of 50% unemployment, because of foriegner over fishing within our National Waters. They refused to follow our rules, and now the Northern Cod is on the verge of exinction.

The Seal hunt is something that I am against. A little fluffy white thing is spray painted or clubbed to death. Why? For profit. I am against that.

I know people who buy no meat during the hunting season and eat only what they can kill, and tehy use as much of the animal as they can (like slippers from the fur) so as not to waste anything. That is completely acceptable, and is the way of life of many Natives and northern Ontario people.

[Silent Eye]

I was saying if you are just going to hunt for pleasure, its useless. Why hunt when you can buy? That was my point. I dont know if you agreed or disagreed, just making that point clear.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Silent Eye on 5:47 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
I was saying if you are just going to hunt for pleasure, its useless. Why hunt when you can buy? That was my point. I dont know if you agreed or disagreed, just making that point clear.

Why hunt when you can buy? Why grow when you can buy? Why build when you can buy? buy Buy BUY!!! Everything must go, selling the world out from under you, GM meat first isle on the RIGHT;) lol sorry, just seems like a consumer mindset:) sorry too many beers.

I guess I say thins because I have very tribal feelings, being at one with nature. I frequently do survival nights out...Good fun, nothing but a blade for the weekend:)..Although with friends I normally bring a poncho to make shelter with. Very positive though, it was one of these nights I swung heavy left, threw the coke can in the fire and that was it, but set our shelter alight lol.

Like I said too many beers, but I say do it, if you can live totally (or damn near;)) free from the system then good luck to you.

You do more damage in your 9-5 job driving to and from etc than you would hunting every now and then.

[Silent Eye]

Growing and building are not the same as hunting. Hunting results in death. Building and growing does not.

[Pete]

Plants are alive to. Everytime you eat bread you have killed some wheat. (don't mind me)

[sc4r]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 2:28 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
I am guessing that us lefties are more environmentally friendly right?

I was thinking we would be faster to solve global warming issues faster. As we would not need to worry about loosing profit, compared to others, we could accept targets for cutting emissions.

We could cary out the research easier if we were communist because the cost would not be as important.

What are the rest of your views on issues such as animal testing, Hunting and deforestation?

Just looking at for some idea of whether or not the left are more eco friendly than the right.


The fact is that capitalism creates a conflict of interest between the individual and society at large and has no way to reconcile that conflict.

It is a flaw of capitalism that it creates what are variously called prisoners dilemma's; Negative externalities; or free rider problems. Enironmental considerations are one of these.

'Lefties' recognise these problems for two reasons (IMHO) :

1) We are actually beter informed and more open minded in general anyway.

2) Our ideology contains a way to solve such problems. It's natural for people who hold to an ideology which cannot solve a problem to try and deny that the problem even exists.

[ravengod]

sealhunting? man that sucks
global warming is indeed a problem
in romania there have been nomore springs and autumns for a long time
pollution is indeed profitable
but ecology is a necessity

[Iepilei]

I'm red, not green.

However, I do believe it our duty to protect our earth and do what we can to minimize damage to our environment. Because let's face it, no damage we do to earth can completely render it inhabitable. Evolution will come forth, and new species will spawn to adapt to the new conditions.

It's in the greater intrest of the economy and humanity that we conserve all that we can.

[Silent Eye]

"Because let's face it, no damage we do to earth can completely render it inhabitable."


Thats where you are wrong Iepilei.

Nuclear War, desertification, pesticides/chemicals, and global warming will surely render the Earth mostly uninhabitable and the effects would be irreversible.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Silent Eye I suggest you check out SN's global warming post in opposing ideologies...

You say building and growing do not result in death (habbitat destruction?) and hunting does. So does meat eating when we are not hunting. Do you think we would eat as much meat if we had to kill the animal ourselves? I see it as acceptance, of what we are doing.

"Plants are alive to. Everytime you eat bread you have killed some wheat." Exactly, how far do you go?

I intend to be a little jungle bunny eventually, that is if I get too frustrated with not changing things...I shall hunt. I would do this to live seperate from a consumer society. You said hunting kills, and we should buy substandard, expensive and often genetically modified produce, from intensive farms, that substitute the animals standard of life for profit? That to me is worse.

I realise that what I say is realistic, but if there is one thing I will keep for this life is the beliefs I live by, whether or not the staus-quo agree.

Finally.."Nuclear War, desertification, pesticides/chemicals, and global warming will surely render the Earth mostly uninhabitable and the effects would be irreversible." Effects irreversible, yes. Uninhabitable, partly. However life will adapt, the life that does survive will evolve. Chances are we are not amongst it...but life will go on. The plants oxygenatin the air killed of many early organisms, but we wouldn't be here if they didn't.

[Silent Eye]

Plants have no nerves. They do not feel pain. If they did, they would have evolved far better defenses. Eating from a tree is not the same as killing off animals.

And as for you last paragraph. . .. . . You are basically saying the world will be almost uninhabitable, a wasteland, with only mice/rats and a few vermin able to survive in it.

.I said growing doesnt result in death. It depends on where you build. Building and growing carefully cause only minor casualties.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Answer it from bottom up...last paragraph said that is what would SURVIVE, they would evolve, who knows, may be far more habbitable in the long run..Again the plants killed of early life, but we are here.

They would have evolved better defences? There are poisonous plants, spiky plants, hard to reach plants etc...they all can fend off what they were initially designed to, their main predators. Some fruit is meant to be eaten, that is how the seeds are spread, the rely on being eaten, not killed. We often don't kill the plants, that is fine.

Trees are different, we kill them off. They evolved pretty well, they have been round longer than us...Trees aren't wiped out by too many organisms, especially larger ones. However I must appologise that they haven't yet evolved defences against a chainsaw, forest fires and human greed. Then again neither have animals.

Another thing is organisms do not evolve if they have a painless life, they evolve if they have a life. Pain would have fuck all to do with it if they can live, and reproduce.

It seems like you blame te plants for not evolving enough, do you take pleasure in killing these lesser organisms? Supposedly animals would not have evolved as much either, why let them live?

Remember we are animals too, and we evolved eating meat. It provides nutrition.sure you can get around it nowadays, but I say fuck the lifestyle that allows this..It does far more damage than if we all lived naturally in the first place, and hunted/reared/foraged and grew our own food.