| Author |
Message
|
| ttyo888 |
 Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject: The dark side of environmentalism |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 39
|
Hi after watching the last episodes of Planet Earth, I wondering so far approaches to environmental are still a bit soft and trying to find a balance between human needs and environmental impact.
But then after 911, i was kinda made to think that, What if there are such people who will do anything to save the environment with radical solutions like what the religion-based terrorists are currently doing.
But one concern is about killing people, to leviate the world's problem of overpopulation, lack of resources, global warming.etc. They are all linked.
Quote from Planet Earth.
How many people should there be?
" When someone is get at a number, I would say between 500 million people and 1 billion. No more than that"
Dr. James Lovelock
" I think that Earth can safely support in a sustainable way at a reasonable standard of living about half of what we have today. And I think that it would make the people happier, and it would certainly make the Planet happier. We would have more diversity and have plenty of productivity. We will be able to mantain our cultural diversity. And the world will be a more sustainable place...."
Anomymous Guy, they didn't put his name.
Don't you guys think it's something that we or the Pentagon should think about dealing with such a problem after eventually Osama and his gang are apprehended?
The argument is always "I committed a crime to prevent a greater one" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| paralith |
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 959
Location: Washington, DC
|
Well, the ALF (Animal Liberation Forces) are the number one domestic terrorist threat in the USA as far as the FBI is concerned. Though they have talked about murdering research scientists I don't think they've actually killed anyone yet.
So far I don't think any environmentally linked issues have motivated people towards the same levels of violence as religious and sociopolitical issues have. And I don't think it's likely that they will, considering that one of the main tenets of environmentalism etc is a general respect for life on this planet.
I also think that a lot of recent technological breakthroughs have changed a lot of the estimates we previously had about how many people can be sustained on our planet without injuring the environment further. And besides, killing a bunch of people won't solve the problem forever; learning better practices of living is the best way to ensure the longterm protection of the environment, and any serious environmentalist understands that.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
Monkeys in Clothes - hosted by SFN blogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ttyo888 |
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 39
|
But if people are mislead to think that killing some people can benefit the Earth like say...
" I think that Earth can safely support in a sustainable way at a reasonable standard of living about half of what we have today. And I think that it would make the people happier, and it would certainly make the Planet happier. We would have more diversity and have plenty of productivity. We will be able to mantain our cultural diversity. And the world will be a more sustainable place...."
Anomymous Guy, they didn't put his name.
That giving a good excuse to kill people? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 959
Location: Washington, DC
|
No. It may be a good excuse to try to limit population growth and eventually bring down our population's numbers, but it will never be a good excuse to kill a ton of people.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
Monkeys in Clothes - hosted by SFN blogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ttyo888 |
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 39
|
| But it's not too farfetched that it may lead to that right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| blackfoxtrade |
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 18
Location: Estonia
|
Measures have already been taken in China, for example (with their one child policy). As more women get a job, they will have less time to deal with children and hence the number of children in one household will plummet around the world, as it has done in Europe and the States.
ttyo888, you quoted Dr. Lovelock, who is a respected scientist, but no one takes him as seriously as to start killing people. The real problem is the amount of resources each person consumes, not the amount of people. Given today's resource management, there are too many people on planet Earth, but there are some new technologies which are very promising in terms of energy production, resource management and of course, contraceptives. I don't think we will see environmental terrorism any time soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ttyo888 |
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 39
|
I think ecoterror will be much more difficult to track as the organization helps people in need but secretly attacks those who piss Mother Nature off. Like the Red Guards in china who nearly wiped out my family line, similarly they will attack the rich who do damage to the environment.
What do you guys think?
And also how will ecoterrorism destroy the reputation of environmentalists until it comes a time where ordinary people fear environmentalists like the Taliban. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 544
|
| Quote: |
I think ecoterror will be much more difficult to track as the organization helps people in need but secretly attacks those who piss Mother Nature off. Like the Red Guards in china who nearly wiped out my family line, similarly they will attack the rich who do damage to the environment.
What do you guys think?
And also how will ecoterrorism destroy the reputation of environmentalists until it comes a time where ordinary people fear environmentalists like the Taliban. |
Your family's suffering at the hands of the Red Guard is horrible to contemplate, but I don't see "eco" terrorism ever gaining enough of a following to overcome the rule of law in such a way. Organizations seriously dedicated to sustainability, such as WWF, have no connection with secret attacks by imbeciles.
After ALF comes ELF. Terrorists burned down a ski lodge at Vail, supposedly to protect lynx habitat. I think and hope the idiots named in this article have gone to prison. I also don't think we should prefix the word terrorist with a modifier like "eco". It suggests this type of terrorist is not quite a bad as that type. A terrorist is a terrorist. The firefighters who fight arson fires are among their potential victims.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9244744/detail.html?rss=den&psp=news |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ttyo888 |
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 39
|
That's horrible! Did anyone got hurt?
Anyway, I am chinese but I hate China for doing such a thing. My great GP or grandpa was the last survivor of my family line and escaped to HK. Then in 1989, China did it again in the Tiananmen Masscre. My family wasn't involved but my uncle saw the cruelty with his eyes.Good thing my new home island country runs on democracy and am a citizen of it and proud of it!
Wow, the ski lodge was burnt to the ground! To protect the lynx, they should have negotiated instead of violence. But I think some people are so thick in the head that violence is needed. I think that's what they are thinking.
So far these examples are in the west, and it may spread to Asia! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ttyo888 |
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 39
|
| blackfoxtrade wrote: |
| Measures have already been taken in China, for example (with their one child policy). As more women get a job, they will have less time to deal with children and hence the number of children in one household will plummet around the world, as it has done in Europe and the States. |
Now the one-child policy is biting back, and it's an attitude problem. Chinese people are so worked up over sirname, they unbalance the gender ratio, and they are hiding it behind reunification of Taiwan to rebalance the problem. The problem with them is their attitude which haven't changed for thousands of years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4062
Location: Scotland
|
| Bunbury wrote: |
| I also don't think we should prefix the word terrorist with a modifier like "eco". |
Just out of interest, what name should we give to groups of powerful individuals who invade a sovereign state as a self professed act of 'national' interest and (to keep things on topic) fail abyssmally to carry out actions to protect the environment, but indulge in many that will damage it? Ah, that's right.  We call them Republicans.
(My genuine apologies to all old school Republicans who have been undermined, misrepresented, and otherwise abused by the present bunch.)
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 544
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| Just out of interest, what name should we give to groups of powerful individuals who invade a sovereign state as a self professed act of 'national' interest and (to keep things on topic) fail abyssmally to carry out actions to protect the environment, but indulge in many that will damage it? Ah, that's right. We call them Republicans. |
Terrorism is violence deliberately aimed at civilians, and however wrong and stupid this Republican administration may be, and however many civilians have in fact been killed, the war in Iraq was not aimed at deliberately killing or terrorizing civilians.
And on the environment, not all Republicans are as wooden-headed as Bush. John McCain has gradually assimilated the science and become strongly committed to environmentally positive policies. Should he be elected this would surely be a sign that many Republicans are not environmental dunces.
I don't often stand up for Republicans, but we ought to be careful about definitions, and about stereotyping people, even in jest, don't you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1064
|
ttyo; On your opening post; With 6.5 Billion people now on the planet, there are far fewer deaths from preventable problems, than anytime in the history of the planet. Those deaths that do occur, for the most part happen for political or government caused neglect. If there is a pending problem for the world, I would think it will come from distribution interruptions caused probably from some form of energy supply, or a true climate change toward COLD, not warming.
For some reason, some people will always be out there, trying to influence society to their point of view. Whether religion, social habits, politics or some ill conceived notion of doing good for others. Occasionally these perverted concepts, take hold of other agenda to enhance their own.
Many times any good in some movement is lost when this happens.
On Osama; Do you really think, his death or those of his gang will slow or stop the 100 year old project of the "Islamic Brotherhood" or the factions which live around the world today. I don't think so, it will take the people of that faith to make change, developing a tolerant attitude to those that differ....
On China; Personally I dislike any form of social structuring, whether it comes from some group or from a government. I also distrust any government that is not from the people of the society, they rule. However China is a society of 1.7 Billion people ( or close to it). In the US, I can see problems with my view with the current 300 Million, where maybe the society is not qualified to determine that government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1064
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| Bunbury wrote: |
| I also don't think we should prefix the word terrorist with a modifier like "eco". |
Just out of interest, what name should we give to groups of powerful individuals who invade a sovereign state as a self professed act of 'national' interest and (to keep things on topic) fail abyssmally to carry out actions to protect the environment, but indulge in many that will damage it? Ah, that's right. We call them Republicans.
(My genuine apologies to all old school Republicans who have been undermined, misrepresented, and otherwise abused by the present bunch.) |
In some manner I would agree, with your suggested premise. The problem is you have it completely back wards. Conservatives, which are usually Republicans in the US, believe in short...self dependence, where the idea is practical. Oil, I presume your problem, for instance should be explored for, drilled for and obtained, where it is known to exist or should on US territory. Environmentalist, who are embraced by the Democrat Party, by their actions are saying get it from where ever, just not from my back yard. There is hypocrisy, since those same people use no less, enjoy the same products/services, that all Americans have. The US has untold quantities of coal, which is also limited to use and when used under constant threat by those same groups. They fight all forms of energy and/or business on the same theory, in the courts causing untold hardships and cost, which in the end defeat there said intention...
As for the current "bunch", assume this means President GW Bush. We have a saying here..'Live by example'. His rather modest home in Texas, is a 'green parties' example of what all people should have for a home. In the meantime the past 'bunch' (Clinton/Gore), live in many homes, certainly not modest and are completely dependent on the energy products their following hates... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ttyo888 |
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 39
|
| Hey what are the odds that the worst and most deadliest pandemical diseases could have been made by terrorists. I feel that eco terrorists are as deadly as bio terrorists as they are environmentalists as well as scientists so they might be well experts in their field and they might use it to the disadvantage of the population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
