Greenpeace

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF@Apr 7 2004, 07:22 PM
They actually think that the human species is in any way capable of actually "hurting" the planet. (a ridiculous notion on it's own considering that inanimate objects cannot be "hurt", they can only by "changed")

To begin, the planet is not an inanimate object. The biosphere is a collection of highly animated life, and man absolutely has done things that have brought about significant harm to the environment.

Every species that is extinct has an impact on its ecosystem, regardless of whether that is immediately apparent to the naked eye. The great forests of the Smokies are dying, thanks to overuse of fossil fuels, a large corporate criminal, TVA and the criminals in the White House and EPA.

Are many of these negative effects permanent? You bet. Once something is gone, it's gone. Will the earth "right itself" and restore order? You bet. One day, probably soon, mother earth will begin to restore the balance, but it cannot recreate lost species.

Organizations like Greenpeace bring attention to critical issues via direct action, and they receive my full support.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF@Apr 7 2004, 08:31 PM
I cannot see these issues posing any type of "real threat" to what I consider to be the only issue that matters, the advancement of the human race.

I simply do not find the possibility of certain species of animals "going extinct" to be any concern to us in reality.

I do not feel that deforestation is a problem. The natural habitat of animals is not a concern of mine if it stands in the way of human progression. I believe that the mass-hysterical threat that the ecosystem will be altered to a degree that will harm humans is nothing more then that. Massive hysteria.

I've got news for you. You're just ANOTHER ANIMAL dependent on other living organisms for your life. Ecosystems are like a big puzzle. When you take one piece out the whole thing changes.

Air and water affect plant life. Plant life affects the soil and animal life, including yours.

When one little organism is removed, a food source for another organism is removed. When that organism dies or moves to another bioregion (if possible), everything that was dependent on that organism is affected.

[Vinny Rafarino]

To begin, the planet is not an inanimate object. The biosphere is a collection of highly animated life, and man absolutely has done things that have brought about significant harm to the environment.

You are confused. The planet is an inanimate object with animate objects residing ON it.

"Biosphere"

What exactly do YOU consider to be "significant harm" to the environment?

Every species that is extinct has an impact on its ecosystem, regardless of whether that is immediately apparent to the naked eye. The great forests of the Smokies are dying, thanks to overuse of fossil fuels, a large corporate criminal, TVA and the criminals in the White House and EPA.

Show me how this will affect the social progression of the human species. Facts ONLY.

mother earth will begin to restore the balance

"Mother Earth"? You must be one of those hippie types right? Good Grief.

Inanimate objects are incapable of "beginning" or "creating" any sort of illusions of "eco balance" you have conjured up. You are now resorting to babble.

Organizations like Greenpeace bring attention to critical issues via direct action, and they receive my full support.

Go right ahead, support them all you want. The "kid's table" exists for a reason.

I've got news for you. You're just ANOTHER ANIMAL dependent on other living organisms for your life. Ecosystems are like a big puzzle. When you take one piece out the whole thing changes.

Once again, prove how any of this is relevant to the advancement of the human species and keep your fantasies to yourself when you answer.

Air and water affect plant life. Plant life affects the soil and animal life, including yours.

And? Let me guess...More predictions of "global disaster"? What a joke.

When one little organism is removed, a food source for another organism is removed. When that organism dies or moves to another bioregion (if possible), everything that was dependent on that organism is affected.

See above


EDIT:

Here is some food for thought;


1650 In the seventeenth century 7 species became extinct

Mammals

Aurochs (1627)

Birds

1750 In the eighteenth century 11 species became extinct

Mammals

Stellars Sea Cow (1768)

Bluebuck (1799)

Birds

Dodo (1755)

Giant Moa (1773)

Elephant Bird (17th century)

1850 In the nineteenth century 27 species became extinct

Mammals

Cape Lion (1885)

Tarpan (25.12.1879)

Quagga (1883)

Birds

Great Auk (1844)

1900-1919 : 23 species became extinct

Birds

Passenger Pigeon (1914)

Carolina Parakeet (1914)

1920-1939 : 27 species became extinct

Mammals

Barbary Lion (1920)

Tasmanian Wolf

Birds

1940-1960 : 14 species became extinct

1960-1974 : 3 species became extinct


Tell me this, when exactly is "the sky going to fall"?

[canikickit]

Dodo (1755)

*sniff*

[DEPAVER]

I am happy to respond to any substantive refutation of anything I write here; however, I will not respond to puerile, personal attacks.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by DEPAVER@May 18 2004, 11:33 AM
I am happy to respond to any substantive refutation of anything I write here; however, I will not respond to puerile, personal attacks.

Don't worry, no one expected you to.

[MJM]

1960-1974 : 3 species became extinct


Tell me this, when exactly is "the sky going to fall"?

1961 WWF is formed....

1971 Greenpeace is formed...

coincidence you think?
Should we wait for the revolution before we start stopping the rape of the earth for a few lousy dollars - none of which we'll see?



The sad thing is greenpeace inspires the workers more than any socialist or communist party in the world. Greenpeace takes action. Yes, someone who does something, not just talks about it all day long - who do they think they are!
The day will come when the revolution arrives, groups like Greenpeace ensure there will be a world to inherit thats worth living in. They don't pretend to be aby more than that, despite what the media may say.

Shame on anyone who calls themselves a marxist but doesn't take any action, then gets on here and *****es about greenpeace LOL - do you think Marx sat around all day *****ing to Engels about capitalism? Or Che and Castro. Fat lot of good that would have done anyone.
This place is as bad as talk back radio.
Hands up all you microsoft revoltionaries.
Get off your ass and onto the streets.



Ice caps melting.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10433

A story about a guy who didn't sit at home all day complaining about capitalism, he actually left his house and was shocked by what he saw:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5167002

[Vinny Rafarino]

Should we wait for the revolution before we start stopping the rape of the earth for a few lousy dollars - none of which we'll see?

The "rape" of the Earth? Another one of the "mother earth" types I see.

Greenpeace takes action.

They certainly do. The sad part is that they take action for the WRONG CAUSE.

Yes, someone who does something, not just talks about it all day long - who do they think they are!

Those of the "clerical persuasion" do many things ALL DAY LONG as well, who do they think THEY ARE! Silly rednecks running amok in the desert whacking arabs do more than JUST TALK as well. Who do THEY think they are!

Much like the "crusaders" of Greenpeace, these misgulded dolts also spend their entire days "working hard" at their "jobs", yet they still have not accomplished ANYTHING of use to ANYONE.

Shame on anyone who calls themselves a marxist but doesn't take any action, then gets on here and *****es about greenpeace LOL - do you think Marx sat around all day *****ing to Engels about capitalism? Or Che and Castro. Fat lot of good that would have done anyone.
This place is as bad as talk back radio.
Hands up all you microsoft revoltionaries.
Get off your ass and onto the streets.

Go right ahead tough guy, lets see what you've got. I've seen your lot many times over many years. Once the REAL BULLETS start flying, your "gung ho" pseudo-wiseguy attitude crumples into that of a shivering little boy.

You're not fooling anyone mook.

Ice caps melting.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10433

Did you bother to even read this editorial? I've seen better "scientific data" from a 10 year old kid with an Erector set.

Here's the REAL story about the "Melting Ice Caps"

watch out for the "melting" ice caps!

Enviro-TRUTH

debunking the myths

hippies be gone!

A story about a guy who didn't sit at home all day complaining about capitalism, he actually left his house and was shocked by what he saw:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5167002

It's amazing you people still exist! Go back to your cave, it's "safer" there.

So who exactly is this "Robert Saunders" cat? According to the article, no one. I have a sneaky suspicion that neither are you.

[DEPAVER]

It's amazing you people still exist! Go back to your cave, it's "safer" there.

In years of participating in Internet discussion groups, I don't think I've ever seen anyone as belligerent and childish as you.

The reason no one is willing to debate you is

1. It's obvious you are not interested in a serious discussion concerning environmental issues.
2. Your diction is offensive and combative.

You apparently think that you are the "king of debate;" however, you're actually a king of nothing since your style prevents you from engaging in serious debate with people equipped to refute your spittle. Why should I deign to engage such a virulent person as you?

I can see for my own eyes what capitalism and push for ever increasing profits have done to the planet. No studies are required for me to see the smog in the Smokies, courtesy of TVA, or to understand the effect that fossil fuel facilities have had on the lower Mississippi River. These things are self evident, and there's plenty of science on both sides to support the fact that the Smokies, for example, are a dying ecosystem.

Previously you stated "Show me how this will affect the social progression of the human species." Well, I never said anything would negatively affect the progression of the human species. Humans have adapted quite well, perhaps too well, and are a pernicious force to all other forms of life. Humans seem to march onward, similar to a swath of army ants, destroying everything in their wake.

Could you please define "progression of the species?" What does that entail?

However, I'm not just interested in the progression of the human species. I'm interested, and rightly so, of the progression of all species, and one doesn't have to possess an IQ over 200 to understand that if you remove wolves from your ecosystem, the deer population will explode and have a negative effect on surrounding vegetation, as well as suffer from disease. The effects on the vegetation affect species dependent on it for sustenance and so forth and so on. The affected species include man, which must move to a new area where food is more readily available. Eventually, there won't be enough places for everyone to move, and this will be extremely apparent once the Age of Oil is over, and you can't just ship in some beef from Wisconsin.

The pivotal point for us is whether we choose to see the role of Homo Sap as a conqueror of the land or as a member of it, along with the other species in the biotic community. Like it or not, there is a biotic pyramid. Plants absorb energy from the sun and the energy flows through a circuit called the biota, which is represented by a pyramid consisting of layers. At the bottom layer is the soil. The plant layer rests upon the soil, an insect layer on the plants, a bird and a rodent layer on the insects, and so on up through the various animal groups to the apex layer, which consists of larger carnivores, including man.

The lines of dependency for food and other services are called food chains. We used to have a chain identified as soil-oak-deer-Indian, now we have a chain known as soil-corn-cow-farmer. Each species is a link in many chains, since deer eat hundreds of plants other than oak, and the pyramid becomes a tangle of chains so complex it's absolutely amazing. Yet, the functioning depends on the co-operation and competition of its diverse parts.

Can these systems or chains adjust to major changes? Biotas seem to differ in their capacity to sustain major changes. Western Europe is vastly different than in the time of Caesar, since many of the larger animals are lost, swampy forests have become meadows and there are now many non-native plants. The soil is still fertile, however, and water flows normally. The new structure of the ecosystem seems to function and persist. It's what scientists call a resistant biota.

Examples of non resistant biota would be part of Asia and Africa, as well as the Southeastern and Southwestern United States. How do I know it's not resistant? I'm living in it and see the affects every day.

By the way, here's some science on various issues:

Forest Cover Shrinking

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator4.htm



Grain Harvest Slowing

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator6.htm

Water Scarcity

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator7.htm



Slow Downs in Fish Catch

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator3.htm

Ice Melts

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator9.htm

[MJM]

Go right ahead tough guy, lets see what you've got. I've seen your lot many times over many years. Once the REAL BULLETS start flying, your "gung ho" pseudo-wiseguy attitude crumples into that of a shivering little boy.

The poor little microsoft revolutionary hits out when the truth comes knocking on his door eh. When you saw my lot with the "real bullets" flying what did you do next - change channel. LOL

Goodbye CRAF, take care in your easy chair.

[Vinny Rafarino]

The poor little microsoft revolutionary hits out when the truth comes knocking on his door eh. When you saw my lot with the "real bullets" flying what did you do next - change channel. LOL

Goodbye CRAF, take care in your easy chair.

That's the best you have? Come on son, the first thing kids do here when they look silly is attempt to discredit others with "you're nothing but an armchair revolutionary".

We've heard it all before my boy. Try something new.

The reason no one is willing to debate you is

Are you sure about that? Perhaps the real reason is that they are wrong, much like yourself.

Humans have adapted quite well, perhaps too well, and are a pernicious force to all other forms of life. Humans seem to march onward, similar to a swath of army ants, destroying everything in their wake.

And we will continue to do so, either with you or OVER you.

Could you please define "progression of the species?" What does that entail?

I'm surprised you bothered to ask since this is a message board for "leftists". The party's goal is to advance humanity into communism.

These things are self evident, and there's plenty of science on both sides to support the fact that the Smokies, for example, are a dying ecosystem.

Then let them die. Neither the plants nor the animals will have anything to say about it, nor will they care.

However, I'm not just interested in the progression of the human species. I'm interested, and rightly so, of the progression of all species, and one doesn't have to possess an IQ over 200 to understand that if you remove wolves from your ecosystem, the deer population will explode and have a negative effect on surrounding vegetation, as well as suffer from disease.

Good for you, everyone needs a hobby I suppose. I suggest knitting, you may enjoy it.

e affected species include man, which must move to a new area where food is more readily available

Then they will have to MOVE. Not that this is going to happen anyway. Eventually you will see that it simply WAS just a little acorn landing on your head.

The pivotal point for us is whether we choose to see the role of Homo Sap as a conqueror of the land or as a member of it, along with the other species in the biotic community. Like it or not, there is a biotic pyramid. Plants absorb energy from the sun and the energy flows through a circuit called the biota, which is represented by a pyramid consisting of layers. At the bottom layer is the soil. The plant layer rests upon the soil, an insect layer on the plants, a bird and a rodent layer on the insects, and so on up through the various animal groups to the apex layer, which consists of larger carnivores, including man.

The lines of dependency for food and other services are called food chains. We used to have a chain identified as soil-oak-deer-Indian, now we have a chain known as soil-corn-cow-farmer. Each species is a link in many chains, since deer eat hundreds of plants other than oak, and the pyramid becomes a tangle of chains so complex it's absolutely amazing. Yet, the functioning depends on the co-operation and competition of its diverse parts.

I'm aware of what a biota is, are you?

You're right, some species of plants and animals will die out. What you fail to recognise is that they will die out WITH or WITHOUT our help. Creating "myths" of armeggedon to somehow give your line "credibility" is absurd. Tomorrow the human race will wake up, just as they will do for many years to come.

Examples of non resistant biota would be part of Asia and Africa, as well as the Southeastern and Southwestern United States. How do I know it's not resistant? I'm living in it and see the affects every day.

Funny, I currently reside in the Southwestern US...You are creating a dramatic interlude where there is none.

By the way, here's some science on various issues

No thanks, I prefer to get my information from real scientists.

[DEPAVER]

Are you sure about that? Perhaps the real reason is that they are wrong, much like yourself.

Quite sure. It is you that is misinformed, and I might add that you've said nothing to prove your point. If I had a dollar for every instance of non sequitur in your posts, I'd be wealthy.

And we will continue to do so, either with you or OVER you.

For a period, then the tide changes. A group of international scientists calculated that while in 1961 we were using only 70 per cent of the Earth's regenerative capacity, we reached parity by the mid-1970s and by 1999 were using 25 per cent more than could be regenerated. The 1999 figure means the Earth needs 15 months to replenish what humans take out of the biosphere every year. And while we haven't reached the point of no return, we're approaching that point, according to Valerie Kapos, a senior adviser at UNEP-WCMC, the United Nations' conservation monitoring project.

So, the net effect is that natural resources are wearing out because they cannot
be replaced by biological processes. That applies to such essentials as arable land, grazing areas, timber, fish, "infrastructure", and fossil and nuclear fuels. No one knows when we run out of money in the piggy, but we know for a fact that we can't continue ad infinitum as we are now.

The party's goal is to advance humanity into communism.

And I suppose I should assume that the party platform makes no provisions for sustainable production. If no, count me out, and forget having any significant presence in the U.S.

Then let them die. Neither the plants nor the animals will have anything to say about it, nor will they care.

Well, you're wrong again. Humans are animals and there are a bunch of humans (a few who might be sympathetic to your cause) that do in fact care.

Then they will have to MOVE. Not that this is going to happen anyway. Eventually you will see that it simply WAS just a little acorn landing on your head.

Somehow I don't think starving children in Africa see it this way. I can't believe how bitter and cold you are.

I'm aware of what a biota is, are you?

Well, I know you are since I just explained it to you. You've now passed 5th grade science.

You're right, some species of plants and animals will die out. What you fail to recognise is that they will die out WITH or WITHOUT our help.

Name the last species that became extinct without the help of man, and then compare that to all of the species that became extinct thanks to man.

Funny, I currently reside in the Southwestern US...You are creating a dramatic interlude where there is none.

Ed Abbey and Dave Foreman respectfully disagree.

No thanks, I prefer to get my information from real scientists.

And the brilliant empiricist goes down in flames. Nothing but a reductive, uninformed dismissal. Please establish the fact that these scientists are bogus or provide examples of why their data is flawed. Be specific and show the flaws in their methods and/or research.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quite sure. It is you that is misinformed, and I might add that you've said nothing to prove your point. If I had a dollar for every instance of non sequitur in your posts, I'd be wealthy.

Perhaps you should read the thread again. All of your silly little myths have been debunked for some time. Can we say "research" boys and girls?

For a period, then the tide changes. A group of international scientists calculated that while in 1961 we were using only 70 per cent of the Earth's regenerative capacity, we reached parity by the mid-1970s and by 1999 were using 25 per cent more than could be regenerated. The 1999 figure means the Earth needs 15 months to replenish what humans take out of the biosphere every year. And while we haven't reached the point of no return, we're approaching that point, according to Valerie Kapos, a senior adviser at UNEP-WCMC, the United Nations' conservation monitoring project.

So, the net effect is that natural resources are wearing out because they cannot
be replaced by biological processes. That applies to such essentials as arable land, grazing areas, timber, fish, "infrastructure", and fossil and nuclear fuels. No one knows when we run out of money in the piggy, but we know for a fact that we can't continue ad infinitum as we are now.

Let me guess, we are all "gonna die" right?

And I suppose I should assume that the party platform makes no provisions for sustainable production. If no, count me out, and forget having any significant presence in the U.S.

Yes, we will cetainly "count you out". There is no room for another Nostradamus in the future.

Communist intellectuals do not concern themselves with your speculative and misinformed mythology for one simple reason; it is MYTHOLOGY.

"Sustainable production"

Well, you're wrong again. Humans are animals and there are a bunch of humans (a few who might be sympathetic to your cause) that do in fact care.

Like I have already said, go right ahead and "care" all you want. Those with limited ability must remain content with limited actions. At least you will be out of the way.

Somehow I don't think starving children in Africa see it this way. I can't believe how bitter and cold you are.

Perhaps if people like you spent more time addressing the real problem rather than your simplistic ideals of how "trees and animals" should be treated, these children would no longer be starving. They would have been relocated to a more suitable environment some time ago.

After all, we all know that I am personally responsible for the extended drought in parts of Africa.

I can't believe that there are people out there that put the wlefare of non self aware species in front of the welfare of the human species. What a joke.

Well, I know you are since I just explained it to you. You've now passed 5th grade science

Thanks kiddo, I finished graduate school many years ago. How about you?

Name the last species that became extinct without the help of man, and then compare that to all of the species that became extinct thanks to man.

Can you?

Ed Abbey and Dave Foreman respectfully disagree.

And David Koresh thought he was Jesus Christ.

And the brilliant empiricist goes down in flames. Nothing but a reductive, uninformed dismissal. Please establish the fact that these scientists are bogus or provide examples of why their data is flawed. Be specific and show the flaws in their methods and/or research.

Read the thread son.

[Kurai Tsuki]

I thought people like RAF weren't allowed to post outside Opposing Viewpoints.

[DaCuBaN]

No, RAF is a communist alright. He's a bastard if you disagree with him, but you can't be restricted for being... erm... stubborn

I can't believe that there are people out there that put the wlefare of non self aware species in front of the welfare of the human species. What a joke.

This one has always worried me. Much as I'm for looking after the whole planet, We really have to prioritize. I'm sorry Mr Tree, but Mrs Starving is a little more important in my eyes. Greenpeace do indeed do sterling work, and they are an active organisation which in it's way is quite admirable. It's so amazingly pointless though, as they are attacking the effect, not the cause.

It's people like RAF who (if he DOES active work - I do not personally know) attack the root - greed and slavery.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Kurai_Tsuki@May 21 2004, 01:39 AM
I thought people like RAF weren't allowed to post outside Opposing Viewpoints.

What would make you think that?

Greenpeace do indeed do sterling work, and they are an active organisation which in it's way is quite admirable

How can you be sure that their work is sterling? I find that an organisation that not only distorts actual fact but even MAKES UP THIER OWN FACTS to be somewhat less that sterling.

Just because an organisation claims to be "just and right" does not mean it is an actual reality.

You can gain support for ANY movement if you market it correctly. All you need to do is make a few television adverts of cute little baby seals and no one will bother to question your motives.

The Catholic Church is an "active organisation" too, how admirable are they?

[BuyOurEverything]

I get the feeling that environmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are popular because they 'stand up' to capitalism. They claim to oppose capitalism and actively work against the interests of many large corporations.

However, this in itself is not enough. Opposing capitalism for the sake of insentient life is just ridiculous. Let us not forget that Islamic fundamentalists, and for that matter National Socialists, claim to oppose capitalism too.

Frankly, I've seen a few too many unemployed loggers and forest workers to back environmentalism with any serious fervor. We should be careful about affecting the environment, but humans take precedence.

What would make you think that?

You're not a hippy

[pedro san pedro]

[QUOTE]They claim to oppose capitalism and actively work against the interests of many large corporations.

However, this in itself is not enough. Opposing capitalism for the sake of insentient life is just ridiculous./QUOTE]

never once in GP's history have they claimed to oppose capitalism - they understand too well how to campaign on an international level.

however, their role as agitators should not be overlooked - i'm yet to see you make international news pointing out how poorly the 'system' works, bozg.

sounds like you guys are suffering majorally from tall poppy syndrome - insetaed of getting yourselves active, your just trying to cut down those that are out there making a difference.


gp doesnt just campaign "on behalf on non-sentiant life" - look at there history with toxics. things like the treaty of basel - stopping the trade of hazardous material to 3rd world countries without the facilitis to deal with them.

or work at bhopal, campaigning to get justice for the people that have been killed and made extremely sick by union carbide.

or relocating islanders living under the fallout of US nuclear tests.

its not all cuddly animals.

[DEPAVER]

Thanks kiddo, I finished graduate school many years ago. How about you?

snip

Read the thread son.

I'm in my 40's and don't need to brag about my education; however, I can promise you that it exceeds yours.

I have no idea where you went to school, but I believe I would ask for a refund.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I'm in my 40's and don't need to brag about my education; however, I can promise you that it exceeds yours.

Doubtful tough guy.