Tree-hugging destroying the environment by Hardware

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

During America's and Britain's industrial development the environment was a toilet, rivaling anything you would have found in developing Russia or China. You may be too you to remember when the Cuyahoga Rive caught on fire and burned a couple of railroad trestles, certainly too young to personally remember the killer smog of Donora PA, or further back, when large swaths of the USA was deforested, but America had its own gritty period of capitalistic environmental destruction.

The author is cherry-picking his facts to the point where there are very fews left - including, BTW his "representation" of "tree-huggers" as dirty, ignorant, toked-up "hippies" (Dude, you seen ANY hippies lately???)

The author is an idiot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:07 AM

Read the whole article. He addresses both of your points.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

He addresses none of them.

First of all, if he didn't want to leave readers with the impression that "tree huggers" are stinky hippies, why the hell did he lead his article with that image, which even included a picture? HE'S A PIG'S ASSHOLE AND A LIAR.

And he picked... what? Dam building and Germany as his only examples? Can you say cherry-picking? Sure you can!

Look, I gotta go to work. Later, dude.

Oh, I guess he only looks like an asshole and a liar.

See how that works?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:38 AM

Anytime there is a paradigm shift in industry and development, no matter what socio-economic system is in play, pollution always drastically increases.

We are starting to see increased pollution from fracking, and ramping up oil drilling off shore has lead to what is also a fairly major disaster.

I do not believe either side can really point fingers at each other, nor should we. Not if we want to keep breathing clean air and drinking clean water.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 5:47 AM

STORYMARK

The tone of the writing alone makes it impossible to take too seriously.

But far be it from me to question the science of a site as intellectually robust as "Manlyexcellece.com."

I think Sig nailed it off the bad - the author is an idiot.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:37 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

took a brief look around that site, and I can't exactly figure it out. If it's supposed to be satirical, it isn't funny- it's homophobic and racist humor.
If it's intended to be taken seriously, it's still racist and homophobic, but cloaked in right wing anarchism and violence.
Either way, not a credible source for legitimate argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:44 AM

STORYMARK

I think Hardware knew it was bullshit, so he loaded his opening post with that "cause and effect" crap, so that he can ignore those who point out the problems in the article by calling them "flamers" (which, in context with the site, rather says something about Hardware, I think).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:54 AM

BNW

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Among tree-hugging hippies (Figure 1), there is a common sentiment that capitalism is inherently evil and will result in the destruction of our environment. I’ve argued with some of these hippies before, and tried to explain to them that countries with free market systems (such as the U.S. and Japan) typically have much better environmental quality then countries with centrally-planned economies (such as China and the former Soviet Union).

and that's because the tree hugging hippies are able to speak their minds in the "free" countries. I guarantee, western industries have been dragged kicking and screaming into every bit of clean policy they have - by who? The fricking long haired hippies and their lawyers!

I think you owe a bunch of hippies apologies and long overdue thank you's.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:06 AM

His actual examples were a planned economy and free market economy. But I guess you can't open your mind to examine an idea that is immediately antithetical to your world view.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:43 AM

DREAMTROVE

Byte is right. This cannot be a partisan issue. The survival of the Earth depends upon the survival of the Earth, which requires the support of 99% of the people until someone makes it into a partisan issue; then, it can have, at maximum, the support of 50% of the people.

Hardware has a point, the ineffective tactics of the past have misdirected the efforts of the concerned, but we can't solve that by pointing the finger in the other direction either.

One species, one planet, no second chances. Let's not fuck it up by fighting amongst ourselves.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 8:40 AM

Dude, better sources, better arguments.

That one had FAIL written *all* over it from the get-go.

Have you never pondered like, negotiating with the hippies instead of flaming them, duuuude ?

Yeah I know there's wild-eyed idealists who won't listen to reason amongst them, but that's *any* ideology, and if you wish to use cherry picking a tiny minority and their behavior as a pathetic excuse for not being reasonable, if all you really want is to "push yours on them", is it any wonder you wind up so firmly rejected ?

Don't get mad, get PRAGMATIC, discuss, negotiate, instead of pontificating - give it a try sometime.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 1:27 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
His actual examples were a planned economy and free market economy. But I guess you can't open your mind to examine an idea that is immediately antithetical to your world view.

Thing is, if I can show you a "planned economy" that is cleaner than ours, and a "free market economy" that is dirtier than China's, can YOU open your mind to examine an idea that is antithetical to YOUR world view?

Your argument - and the author's - seems to hinge around the idea that a nation's economic system dictates their environmental policies. I think a few people here disagree with so simplistic a generalization.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

Quote:

Among rampart right winged fundamentalists, there is a common sentiment that environmentalism is inherently evil and will result in the destruction of our way of life. I’ve argued with some of these right winged nut jobs before, and tried to explain to them that countries with good environmenalist policies (such as the Sweden, Finland and Germany) typically have much stronger or as strong economies then countries such as the US, Australia and Singapore which have a shocking record when it comes to giving a stuff about the environment. Apparently, their cliche riddled brains are immune to reason, because they can only cope with black and white arguments even though last time I checked the world was quite technicolour. The fact of the matter is, environmental policies do not pose significant threat to the capitalist system; but in fact, may actual benefit our economy in the long run....

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

Fixed it for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, Kwicko said it quicker. And better.

MAGON'S- BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hardware, there is only one point that a person could reasonably make for capitalism being beneficial for the environment, and he didn't even come close to making it.

If you're interested, I'll tell you what it is. just to be the devil's advocate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 17, 2011 4:30 AM

The question Sig, is can you show me an industrial planned economy with a better environment?

The author demonstrated an example of when our own government supplanted the role of private industry in making dams and how badly that affected the environment. Can you cite a counter-example?

I'm hearing a lot of automatic rejection from the usual suspects. But, as usual, there's no supporting evidence being offered.

Total weaksauce. You all get a zero for the week.

And to Kwicko and Sig, in response to your earlier, knee-jerk refuting of the article...

Quote:

...I’m certainly not trying to argue that governments shouldn’t act to improve environmental quality. There are many examples of our government making appropriate environmental policies, such as enacting pollution taxes. But when government attempts to side-step the free market to provide specific solutions to environmental and natural resource problems, unintended adverse consequences often result. One obvious example of this is the energy crisis in the 1970’s...

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 17, 2011 8:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH

Problem is, Hardware, you and yours are every bit as guilty of this, both "sides" have a proven history of it - and initially you came across as pontificating, with a tremendously biased and non-credible source, which as mentioned, isn't reallllly the best way to start an honest discussion, either it reframes the debate in a way that winds up reduced quickly to absurdities, or it provokes sufficient hostility to make rational discussion thereafter difficult, at best.

Comments like that don't help matters neither, you can't shake hands with a balled fist, yanno ?

All that said, the question is sustainability and long term gain versus slash-n-burn short term exploitation - s'funny, one of the better arguments I heard in that regard was seeing that awful ten commandments flick way back in my callow youth...

Quote:
A city is made of brick, Pharaoh. The strong make many. The weak make few. The dead make none. So much for accusations.

Even more hilarious is that it seems to link back to "Pragmatic Villainry", which come to think of it, that probably was.

There was also a bolts of silk argument with ole Gengis Khan relative to that, wasn't there, tho I don't remember the exact quote offhand... still, THAT is a good starting point for pondering the balance between commercialism and environmentalism, I think, long term gain versus short term and the consequences of either.

I myself take the long view, not being a virtuous sort as a rule, patience is one well worth cultivating.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 17, 2011 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Comments like that don't help matters neither, you can't shake hands with a balled fist, yanno ?

Egzackly.

This author lost me with 'tree hugging hippies', and I wasn't prepared to read much further. If someone wants to discuss how environmentalism may impact on the economy negatively, go for it, but don't fill your argument with name calling and insults and I'll read it happily.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 17, 2011 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
The question Sig, is can you show me an industrial planned economy with a better environment?

The author demonstrated an example of when our own government supplanted the role of private industry in making dams and how badly that affected the environment. Can you cite a counter-example?

I'm hearing a lot of automatic rejection from the usual suspects. But, as usual, there's no supporting evidence being offered.

Total weaksauce. You all get a zero for the week.

And to Kwicko and Sig, in response to your earlier, knee-jerk refuting of the article...

"knee-jerk refuting"? Because I asked a couple questions?

THAT is some weak-ass sauce, hombre.

Quote:

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH

Apparently that holds true for cults, sects, and religions such as "free market" capitalists, corporatists, plutocrats, and the like as well.

Kinda easy to see why you don't get more allies around here.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2011 12:20 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Very interesting discussion. From reading down the thread, it appears to me as if YOU are the one doing knee-jerk stuff, Hardware, and either not reading what people have written, or dismissing it out of hand.

Quote:
During America's and Britain's industrial development the environment was a toilet, rivaling anything you would have found in developing Russia or China.

is a valid statement making a valid point. Only one, but not “knee-jerk”; rather, true.

Quote:
Anytime there is a paradigm shift in industry and development, no matter what socio-economic system is in play, pollution always drastically increases.

Another valid point, which is also true.

Quote:
because the tree hugging hippies are able to speak their minds in the "free" countries. I guarantee, western industries have been dragged kicking and screaming into every bit of clean policy they have

Also true, at least In part. Industries have mostly been dragged into clean policy, some have been educated into it, some actually care. But there’s no question in my mind that it’s at least in part due to the FREEDOM part of free-market that HAS allowed people to speak up and demand change, it’s not what the industries would necessarily do on their own. Providing environmentally-viable ANYTHING is bound to lessen short-term profits; it’s only reasonable that enterprise wouldn’t put a lot of focus on anything that lessens the bottom line. SOME force or other needs to bring it about.

US and Japan = free enterprise; China and Russia = centrally-planned economies. Okay, but I don’t think anyone but left-wing extremists wants “centrally-planned economies”, it’s a false concept. US and Japan aren’t on the opposite side of centrally-planned economies, while China and Russia are about as close to true centrally-planned economies as I know of currently. You have to compare both sides, not one extreme and two other moderates.

Quote:
This cannot be a partisan i

Everyone who’s said that, and that both sides share a fair portion of the blame, is correct. It’s pure partisanship, not to mention prejudice, the way your quote is written, and pretty much means nothing.

I think you’d have to show how the environment has been improved or kept healthy BY free enterprise; in other words leaving out legal, public and governmental (and any other non-free-enterprise) pressures, to make a relevant point.

Quote:
Dude, better sources, better arguments

That’s it in a nutshell. The argument could be made much more viable; from what I read, it sounds like this is written pretty much like Mark Morford does (only seriously...); utilizing pejoratives, slurs, stereotypes, etc. Does not make for communication. You offend anyone who believes even SLIGHTLY differently from the author right off the bat, the way it is apparently written.

Quote:
I'm hearing a lot of automatic rejection from the usual suspects. But, as usual, there's no supporting evidence being offered.

Total weaksauce. You all get a zero for the week.

Apparently that’s what you think you’re hearing, but if you paid attention, rather than just expecting flames and “hearing” them despite what’s actually being said, you’d find some perfectly reasonable arguments in there along with the “he’s an idiot” stuff.

Quote:
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

From what I heard of that article, it sounds like this pretty much describes the author’s intent: to demonize one particular group of “heretics”, and I agree that, just from what I see here, free-enterprise has just as avid and cultish a following as environmentalists. We’re not all tree-hugging hippies; I happen to be a tree-LOVING hippie, but even I think the concept of a “central-planned economy” is NO solution to environmental problems. There needs to be moderation, there need to be compromises on both sides, not extremism. There are extremists in every ideology; they don’t represent a huge number in any ideology. Except maybe Christianity and Islam. :biggin: As an aging tree-loving hippie, I would say that UNFETTERED “capitalism is inherently evil and will result in the destruction of our environment”.

Ooops, as usual, Frem did it more concisely:

Quote:
pontificating, with a tremendously biased and non-credible source, which as mentioned, isn't reallllly the best way to start an honest discussion, either it reframes the debate in a way that winds up reduced quickly to absurdities, or it provokes sufficient hostility to make rational discussion thereafter difficult, at best.

Given you couldn’t “hear” him, you probably won’t hear me either, but the fact is, the terms within which this material is couched do not make for valid debate at all.

Magons,

Just as snarky as the original, but well done nonetheless!

All that being said, I freely admit there are over-the-top environmentalists just as there are any other group. One reason I despise PETA to the point that, when they foolishly sent me some junk mail, I filled their postage-paid envelope with sand and sent it back to them with a note promising to do the same if they EVER sent me anything again. They, and the other extremists, do far more harm to the cause than they do good. ANY extreme will do the same to their cause; turn off the very audience they are trying to convert. As this article apparently does (unless it IS intended as satire, which it doesn’t sound like it is). I’m glad he wrote

Quote:
I’m certainly not trying to argue that governments shouldn’t act to improve environmental quality. There are many examples of our government making appropriate environmental policies

But that undermines his argument, because what he at least APPEARS to be arguing is that unfettered free-market capitalism is what “tree-hugging hippies” want to DO AWAY WITH. That, more than anything else, is the true black-and-white argument.

If you really want to communicate, I’d suggest actually reading what responders have written and responding to their questions/refutations; right now it seems to me that you are, respectfully, writing as one of the knee-jerkiest ones here.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2011 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
The question Sig, is can you show me an industrial planned economy with a better environment?

The author demonstrated an example of when our own government supplanted the role of private industry in making dams and how badly that affected the environment. Can you cite a counter-example?

I'm hearing a lot of automatic rejection from the usual suspects. But, as usual, there's no supporting evidence being offered.

Total weaksauce. You all get a zero for the week.

And to Kwicko and Sig, in response to your earlier, knee-jerk refuting of the article...

"knee-jerk refuting"? Because I asked a couple questions?

THAT is some weak-ass sauce, hombre.

Quote:

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH

Apparently that holds true for cults, sects, and religions such as "free market" capitalists, corporatists, plutocrats, and the like as well.

Kinda easy to see why you don't get more allies around here.

Yet you don't mention the attached paragraph from the original article that negates your attack on it. If you had read the original article you would have known that you were making a lame attack. I think you're just playing for an audience.

As I said. Total weaksauce. Thanks for playing, come back when you have a valid argument.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2011 1:59 PM

DREAMTROVE

Hardware,

Fighting will get us nowhere. I can give you a functional eco-society: The Mayans, ancient mayans. They had it down. The aforementioned Huari OTOH were an eco disaster.

This is all about brains. Using them. The US was an eco-disaster throughout the 19th c. Teddy really put us on the right track, but we're in danger of falling off that track.

An industrial eco-society can be done, but it takes thinking, and not rash action. Almost anything that needs doing will do no damage to the environment. Anything that damages the ecosystem probably doesn't need doing.

When we run into clashes, we should stop and think before acting, like in our recent discussion about switchgrass. We just agreed that Switchgrass briquettes were a better source of coal than mountaintop removal, ecologically, economically, and in yield per acre, as well as suustainability of yield.

So, now we have to demonstrate that to industry by actually doing it.

This is where the infighting has to stop. We will never actually get it done if we waste our time fighting and pointing fingers.

So, instead, let's just do it. I have a farm, you probably do to. How do we harvest switchgrass? 40 barrel eqiv per acre is going to be far more than I consume.

How about Algae while we're at it? I have a lot of water. I might be able to swing this. Screw Fracking for nat'l gas and contaminating the environment, any yield we can't use we'll convert to biogas. Gotta feed all the diesel, coal, and gas burning generators out there, because each wants its own specific type of fuel.

I have long thought that the most underquoted firefly line on this forum is "Why are we still talking about what's already been decided?"

This goes for everyone. Less talk, more action.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:39 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Amen, DT. The problem is, it's NOT something that's already been decided. That's the rub; some say that the environment is less important than people making a living (and they go on to insist that the two are mutually exclusive); others say that the environment is the MOST important thing of all, so whatever jobs, livelihoods, etc., are lost is unimportant in comparison (and usually go on to not offering any alternatives for those displaced or who have lost their living). We can't work together until we agree, and that means compromise, moderation, which isn't what this thread was about. I think we have to work on agreeing on any of it first, then work toward compromise, before we can really start working on it in any way except what little things most of us can accomplish. Any suggestions how we manage that?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The question Sig, is can you show me an industrial planned economy with a better environment?

At least a dozen. What do you have to back up YOUR end?

BTW- Have you figured out the point he COULD have made that would have merited discussion?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2011 6:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Still haven't figured it out?

I'll tell you tomorrow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2011 6:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Niki: we are at the point where we are destroying the environment. And I don't mean making it less pretty, I mean destroying it in a way that means we will not survive well. Unless we ensure the environment's survival, it won't matter much about "making a living."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yet again, you put something up then resort to snarks and little else. You even STARTED with one:

Quote:
Excellent article for anybody who can understand cause and effect. For the rest of you, FLAME ON!

It actually doesn’t have anything to do with cause and effect, the way it’s written.

Quote:
His actual examples were a planned economy and free market economy. But I guess you can't open your mind to examine an idea that is immediately antithetical to your world view.

We DISCUSSED planned economy v. free-market economy, so I don’t know why you repeated that. And that wasn’t the point of the article, it was a slanted put down of environmentalists.

Quote:
I'm hearing a lot of automatic rejection from the usual suspects. But, as usual, there's no supporting evidence being offered.

Total weaksauce. You all get a zero for the week.

And to Kwicko and Sig, in response to your earlier, knee-jerk refuting of the article...

You appear to be the one whose knee is jerking, given you’re not saying anything in your own words to defend your stance, just snarking.

Mike asked

Quote:
if I can show you a "planned economy" that is cleaner than ours, and a "free market economy" that is dirtier than China's, can YOU open your mind to examine an idea that is antithetical to YOUR world view?

He asked a question, which you totally ignored and merely dissed him, then asked Sig to show an industrial planned economy with a better environment. She didn’t cite specifics, but since she said she could show a number of examples, I’d like to hear them, too.

Quote:
Yet you don't mention the attached paragraph from the original article that negates your attack on it. If you had read the original article you would have known that you were making a lame attack. I think you're just playing for an audience.

As I said. Total weaksauce. Thanks for playing, come back when you have a valid argument.

That paragraph did NOT negate the attack on the article, which was mostly that the way it’s written, it’s a propagandistic slam of environmentalists. That he admitted government might sometimes have valid influence on lessening damage to the environment actually negates YOUR argument, which only recognizes either totally planned economy or totally free-market, with nothing in between. Yet you come back to it as if it negated the points being made:

Quote:
Yet you don't mention the attached paragraph from the original article that negates your attack on it. If you had read the original article you would have known that you were making a lame attack. I think you're just playing for an audience.

As I said. Total weaksauce. Thanks for playing, come back when you have a valid argument.

Valid arguments HAVE been presented, against both the article and your concepts, but you haven’t addressed them.

The “automatic rejection” you heard is quite valid...the article wasn’t written in such a way as to make a point, it was so derogatory, well, Once again: Frem pretty much summed it up:

Quote:
initially you came across as pontificating, with a tremendously biased and non-credible source, which as mentioned, isn't reallllly the best way to start an honest discussion, either it reframes the debate in a way that winds up reduced quickly to absurdities, or it provokes sufficient hostility to make rational discussion thereafter difficult, at best.

As to

Quote:
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.

As has already been pointed out, that goes or political ideology too, as is being eloquently illustrated by the actions of those elected in the midterms.

The intent of the article was not to honestly discuss an issue, yet it was honestly debated when it comes to the two different kinds of economies. Yet the fact is that among hard-core right wingers, THEY want totally unfettered free-market economy just as badly and just as blindly as the tree huggers he's condemning. It's an inflammatory article you took seriously and by claiming it was an excellent article about cause and effect.

If you would attempt to back up your stances and actually debate the issues you seem to think you are proposing, that would be one thing. But you put up things you think make a point, then trash others' responses to them, be they valid or not. An unfortunate pattern.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

BTW- Have you figured out the point he COULD have made that would have merited discussion?

The best takeaway the author COULD give (and which he pretty much pissed away by putting people off in the beginning) is that capitalism and environmentalism can form a good partnership for both sides.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Still haven't figured it out? I'll tell you tomorrow.

Ok, here's what he COULD have said that really would have merited a discussion:

Societies become environmentalist only when people are rich enough to worry about things NOT related to immediate survival. Things higher up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Once a population gets to that point the birth rate goes down, and people start caring about leisure time, the environment etc. The question would then become-

Which system gets to that point faster with less damage?

Now, THAT is a point worth discussing! The bullshit in the article? Not so much.

Historically, industrializing nations seem to go through a point where their environment becomes a toilet. However, there are a number of nations which appear to have better control of environmental degradation than ours, including Germany and Costa Rica, and they're all more "planned" than ours.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sig, I forgot to respond to your last one:

Quote:
Niki: we are at the point where we are destroying the environment. And I don't mean making it less pretty, I mean destroying it in a way that means we will not survive well. Unless we ensure the environment's survival, it won't matter much about "making a living."

Of course I know this, and so do many others. My point is that is the argument used by many: no long-term vision, only short-term “convenience” if you will. Yes, it’s not convenience for those who could no longer make a living at what they’re doing now, but there seems to be no will to recognize that those professions won’t last ANYWAY, or the recognition that if we don’t do something, making a living won’t matter much. You’re preaching to the choir, you know that; to me the issue is getting enough people (enough people with money and/or political power) to acknowledge what you just wrote.

And yes, absolutely, this most recent post of yours is right on. But that wasn't the intent of the article, and we both know it, nor the intent of Hardware putting it up.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Things higher up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Could you post that scale ?
I'm interested, both in a general sense, as as to how that developed as a concept.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2011 8:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Had a heckuva time finding one in jpg.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:19 PM

it's an important concept, and why wealthy western nations need to lead the way on environmental issues. Because we can afford to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 6:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mmm, good point, Magons; because we can afford it. Buddhism is partly about leading by example (NOT by force, law or preaching), and the same could be said for environmentalism; if we do it, that in itself would be somewhat of an encouragement for others to do so.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 6:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

However, I disagree with the hierarchy as Maslow proposed. In my view, the desire for acceptance trumps even the desire for survival. That is how you can convince people to go to war and get killed, and to neglect their own interests for the approval of sociopaths. It gets worse when people are fearful- they tend to clump together behind a "leader" for safety... as any good tyrant knows. That's why we're in the shape we are today... not because we're so selfish, but because we're too damn cooperative.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 7:14 AM

Well... Depends on when you're talking about Germany. I know for a fact that German factories actually caused a lot of acid rain in Switzerland early on, which really pissed Switzerland off. Being that the Swiss are both powerful and a neutral nation, the Germans had to make some concessions to appease them.

Otherwise I agree with Sig's point about the Hierarchy. Perhaps not so much that desire for acceptance trumps survival, but rather desire for acceptance is a survival mechanism on par with need for food, water, and so on. Humans are social animals, so were our ancestors, and a lone or outcast human has a much reduced chance of survival. Thus a willingness to make horrific compromises to remain "in the fold" so to speak.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 7:24 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Are you sure it trumps desire for SURVIVAL? The chart is too small for me to make out, but it seems to me that desire for acceptance, being part of the pack, can be seen as a result of short-term decision making, without considering the long-term consequences of survival. Gawd knows, we're a short-term species, and a particularly short-term one in America, it seems to me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 8:25 AM

I believe it does - simply BECAUSE it is initially and foremost a survival mechanism to begin with, while perhaps not stated explicitly within, that concept is part of the integral foundation of Kropotkins Mutual Aid - being the very drive that allowed us to build civilization in the first place, as opposed to the laughable myth that we needed civilizations men with weapons to come force us to build civilization.. *eyeroll*

Thanks for that Siggy - I honestly think this is worth it's own topic though, and would be a better served that way instead of forgotten at the bottom of an idiotic one and subjected to thread-baggage.

And while in some, okay, many cases - the LACK of a desire for acceptance can have awful consequences in that someone without any incentive to treat others well... I don't necessaruly mean sociopathy, as much as sufficient lack of attachment that they just don't bond that way with other humans, which can LOOK the same, but anyhows.... generally goes really badly.

But what if that person CHOOSES, not necessarily acceptance, but actively and purposely CHOOSES to work towards the benefit of their fellow humans, *WITHOUT* that emotional drive ?

I think, in retrospect, some of our most historic visionaries, especially the ones who's misdeeds are as appalling as their nobler ones were decent, may well have been this - but that's all I got at the moment, it's been a loooong weekend.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 10:51 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Maslow%27s_hierarch
y_of_needs.svg

is that easier?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 6:38 PM

Niki, I believe the point Signy was making was that in many cases, the desire to be ACCEPTED - as a soldier, hero, patriot, etc. - by the tribe can be so great that one will put it ahead of one's own need to survive.

It doesn't make sense, but then again, does a kid throwing himself on a grenade to save his buddies really make a lot of sense? It doesn't, but it's still done, and it's still heroic. It's the act of gaining acceptance, ironically, of a group that you're already such an intrinsic part of that you'd give your life to save YOUR group, showing that you've already been accepted. A bit of a conundrum, actually! ;)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 8:07 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I agree with Byte that acceptance for humans could be seen as part of survival since we are a social creature.
Niki, I think that survival in this Maslow context is concerning one's individual survival and not survival as a species. For most people survival does depend on acceptance into a group, one's family to start with and then one's tribe/community. Sure some people decide to live in a isolated fashion and are quite content doing so, but they still had to be part of something at some point.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 11:16 PM

What a day to have this conversation, oh irony of ironies.
Let's just say that Puella Magi Madoka Magica addresses this issue, the idea of desire to be accepted and self sacrifice, and in a way that about floored me.

-Frem

Select to view spoiler:

Kyubey, you just got *bitched*!

ALL HAIL MADOKA !!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike: Got it.

Riona, thanx. As I said, the model is too small for me to make out, so I misunderstood somewhat. Nonetheless, doesn’t throwing oneself on a grenade represent short-term decision making?

(Magons: Thanx, but it asks me if I want to "run or save" when I click on the URL, and my computer is fresh back from the doc's; I'm a bit paranoid about doing either. I think I understand what they're talking about better now, tho'.)

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 11:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Are you sure it trumps desire for SURVIVAL?

Yes, it does. Look at the people of Japan, living in radioactively contaminated areas. What keeps them there?

Quote:
But what if that person CHOOSES, not necessarily acceptance, but actively and purposely CHOOSES to work towards the benefit of their fellow humans, *WITHOUT* that emotional drive ?

A triumph of will.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 11:53 AM

I think that the grenade example is more altruism than it is about acceptance, group survival as opposed to individual survival. Acceptance doesn't matter if you're dead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 11:57 AM

Quote:
Yes, it does. Look at the people of Japan, living in radioactively contaminated areas. What keeps them there?

The really radioactive areas have supposedly been evacuated. Some of the evacuees may still be in radioactive areas because the Japanese government has been reluctant to be honest about just how widespread the problem is, but that's less about acceptance, and more about not having anywhere else to go. Those that still have homes can't sell and move away, who would buy?

But if you don't mean evacuees, but you mean the workers putting their lives in danger because their company made them lose face and honour, then you have a point.

On the other hand, it's a different culture, and so the hierarchy of needs might be expected to work somewhat different.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 1:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, I mean the people living in areas that the government has TOLD them are safe, but private citizens with their Geiger-counter/ dosimeters showing are NOT.

And what do these citizens earn for their diligence and concern? The enmity of their fellow-citizens, who treat them as pariahs. Because anyone in Japan who might be contaminated is now treated like a modern-day leper.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 4:12 PM

I had not heard of this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 5:54 PM