23 ms·

> If it was really such a big deal, "someone" would've paid "somebody" already to relocate the animals "after business hours", if you catch my drift. There's mo

by corty 6y ago

> If it was really such a big deal, "someone" would've paid "somebody" already to relocate the animals "after business hours", if you catch my drift. There's more going on behind the scenes for sure that we just don't know about. Doesn't work, the next thing that will happen is the tree-huggers (B.U.N.D. and others) will get public money to re-establish the population and impose stricter protection measures. In Germany, the environment gets far far better protection than the people.

qayxc 6y ago
> In Germany, the environment gets far far better protection than the people. So how come Glyphosat wasn't banned immediately then? How come nitrate in drinking water goes up [0] and treatment becomes ever more expensive while at the same time industrial livestock farming still gets heavily subsidised? German politics still bends a knee to industrial farming, chemical industry, and heavy industry more than the environment, don't fool yourself. There's a reason the insect population has decreased by over 70% in the last 3 decades [1]. All because the environment is top priority, I presume. The reality is that still no-one cares and the few things that are being done (tunnels and bridges for wildlife to cross roads, relocation programs for endangered species, etc.) are blown out of proportion by critics while the big picture looks bleaker than ever. FYI there's ain't going to be many trees around for the "tree huggers" to hug in a few years if things continue to go the way they do [2]. But yeah, it's all to easy with the us-vs.-them instead of tackling actual roots of the problems... [0] www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/wasser/grundwasser/nutzung-belastungen/faqs-zu-nitrat-im-grund-trinkwasser [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-ger... [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.de/umwelt/2021/02/deutscher-wald-in-dramatischem-zustand https://www.nationalgeographic.de/umwelt/2021/02/deutscher-w...
- corty 6y ago
  Well, yes. Because environmental activism is basically an instrument of NIMBYism, not anything based on facts, evidence or logic. Nobody really protests when farmers spread their poison, because that would be inconveniently far away, lots of work, etc. But protesting about the destruction of the neighbouring daisy habitat is an easy feel-good measure, and if you can NIMBY you way into higher value of your real estate by scarcer ground for housing construction, all the better.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    And you don't see the contradiction there? On the one hand you say that the environment is protected more than the people yet here you argue that it's actually the people who benefit instead of nature. Which is it?
    - corty 6y ago
      People at large aren't really protected in any way here. Neither is the environment at large. There are just a small number of people who advance their interests by selectively pretending to protect some insignificant part of the environment. That this sometimes has big repercussions like cancelling major projects is sold as a big win for the environment, when it actually is a tiny, insignificant and non-proportional one. So in the presentation, we are doing a lot and sacrificing a lot for the environment (not really, but it is presented that way) when we are actually just doing nothing but to hinder progress in other areas.

by corty 6y ago

qayxc 6y ago

> In Germany, the environment gets far far better protection than the people. So how come Glyphosat wasn't banned immediately then? How come nitrate in drinking water goes up [0] and treatment becomes ever more expensive while at the same time industrial livestock farming still gets heavily subsidised? German politics still bends a knee to industrial farming, chemical industry, and heavy industry more than the environment, don't fool yourself. There's a reason the insect population has decreased by over 70% in the last 3 decades [1]. All because the environment is top priority, I presume. The reality is that still no-one cares and the few things that are being done (tunnels and bridges for wildlife to cross roads, relocation programs for endangered species, etc.) are blown out of proportion by critics while the big picture looks bleaker than ever. FYI there's ain't going to be many trees around for the "tree huggers" to hug in a few years if things continue to go the way they do [2]. But yeah, it's all to easy with the us-vs.-them instead of tackling actual roots of the problems... [0] www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/wasser/grundwasser/nutzung-belastungen/faqs-zu-nitrat-im-grund-trinkwasser [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-ger... [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.de/umwelt/2021/02/deutscher-wald-in-dramatischem-zustand https://www.nationalgeographic.de/umwelt/2021/02/deutscher-w...

corty 6y ago
Well, yes. Because environmental activism is basically an instrument of NIMBYism, not anything based on facts, evidence or logic. Nobody really protests when farmers spread their poison, because that would be inconveniently far away, lots of work, etc. But protesting about the destruction of the neighbouring daisy habitat is an easy feel-good measure, and if you can NIMBY you way into higher value of your real estate by scarcer ground for housing construction, all the better.
- qayxc 6y ago
  And you don't see the contradiction there? On the one hand you say that the environment is protected more than the people yet here you argue that it's actually the people who benefit instead of nature. Which is it?
  - corty 6y ago
    People at large aren't really protected in any way here. Neither is the environment at large. There are just a small number of people who advance their interests by selectively pretending to protect some insignificant part of the environment. That this sometimes has big repercussions like cancelling major projects is sold as a big win for the environment, when it actually is a tiny, insignificant and non-proportional one. So in the presentation, we are doing a lot and sacrificing a lot for the environment (not really, but it is presented that way) when we are actually just doing nothing but to hinder progress in other areas.