4 ms·

He was essentially being punished, made an example of for political reasons. I'm not an environmentalist, but thats not right.

redthrowaway 15y ago
Why aren't you an environmentalist? I'm not suggesting it's the only philosophy one can legitimately hold, but I'm wondering where your disagreement with the core tenets of environmentalism (sustainable growth and concern for human health and ecological balance) comes from.
- dushan42 15y ago
  Can't speak for dublinclontarf, but personally I'm not too concerned for the environment simply because I'm fairly indifferent as to whether mankind makes it or not. The Universe has been doing quite well without us for billions of years and will continue to do so if we are too dumb to keep our little rock habitable (which I suspect may be the case). Oh and we're not planning to have kids :)
  - Cushman 15y ago
    Whether "mankind makes it" in the end matters or not, our not making it would involve millennia of avoidable human suffering. It's a little hard to care about anything without caring about that, which I think is what your parent was getting at.
    - dushan42 15y ago
      You are aware that mankind has subjected itself to avoidable suffering for as long as we could swing a stick, right? We have hundreds of millions suffering (avoidably might I add) right now and even if we somehow managed to keep Earth squeaky clean - I see a lot more avoidable suffering for the millennia to come. If anything, significantly reducing Earth's capacity to sustain humans may paradoxically result in diminished total human suffering (average suffering x number of humans) due to lower population. For what it's worth I do care, courtesy to my overly empathetic neural wiring. I'd argue that I am doing a lot more than my peers to reduce future human suffering simply by not contributing to the overpopulation. Not that any of it matters in the grand scheme of things ;) Keep fighting the good fight, I admire your zeal!
    - brianleb 15y ago
      > not making it would involve millennia of avoidable human suffering This premise assumes that in the situation where we "don't make it," the total amount of suffering by the end of the human race would be more than one in where we "do make it." Given that human suffering is caused by everything, I would say that if the race were to survive, there would be infinitely more suffering because we would have more time to inflict it. The premise seems to take for granted that the only way humans suffer is through harming our environment, which is of course not at all accurate. The only way to avoid human suffering is to immediately get rid of all humans; being in favor of existence, I have to argue that this is a fruitless position. Likewise, if animals can suffer, then the existence of animals causes suffering. Animals attack each other, eat each other, steal each others' food source and offspring. The only way to prevent animal suffering is to have no animals. If plants can suffer, then the existence of plants causes suffering as they compete for sunlight and nutrients and the 'losers' wither and die. I suppose my point is: any argument that involves potential existence causing suffering must ultimately come to these conclusions. I don't believe there is any other choice. Plants will never stop competing, animals will never stop competing, and humans will never stop competing. Also, if the crux of your argument is avoidable human suffering, then I would be very interested to know what defines unavoidable human suffering. [Just enjoying my Saturday morning by carrying out some debate]
      - Cushman 15y ago
        I don't think I buy that the idea of "total amount of suffering" makes sense. That suggests that a world with more people, who are each suffering less, would be a worse world overall by virtue of having more "total" suffering. That strikes me as strongly counterintuitive, and very hard to justify rationally, though I'd be happy to see the attempt. And in fact that seems to be the world we're living in. For example, in this TED talk[1] Steven Pinker makes the argument a person being born today — anywhere in the world, counting Iraq and Darfur — has less of a chance of dying at the hands of another person than at any time before in history. So I'm a little skeptical of the idea that the only way to make the human race feel better is to have less of it. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen...
- bugsy 15y ago
  I can't speak for him either, but I'll speak for those of us who are against destroying the environment but won't use the word environmentalist as it, like the word organic and the word christian, have been co-opted by evil bastards with corporate control agendas. Screw all that. It is impossible to take "environmentalism" seriously as a movement when you have people like Al Gore respected, and the Goldman Sachs controlled Carbon exchanges the purpose of which is obvious and it's not to reduce needless consumption.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Is libertarianism defined by Ayn Rand? Is capitalism defined by Donald Trump? Let's put Gore aside for a minute, and focus on the core issues. An environmentalist is someone who, fundamentally, sees the protection of the environment (for practical and/or idealogical reasons) as one of our most serious responsibilities. To say that certain people who identify with the movement are wrong, therefore the movement is wrong, is to say you can't believe in animal rights without being a PETA supporter. It's just a terribly flawed argument. Flipping it on it's head, I could say that environmentalism is beyond reproach because it has people like David Suzuki [1] as its champions. Those arguments simply don't hold water. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
    - bugsy 15y ago
      The deal with this is that I am an environmentalist in the traditional sense. I have an extremely low "carbon footprint" but not because I believe in the Goldman Sachs propaganda of doom. However, far less that 5% of "Environmentalists" I have ever met practice what they preach. It is a religion of mass hypocrisy, just like "Christianity", which likewise has almost nothing at all to do with its defined core teachings. Therefore, it is foolish to apply these labels anymore to the cause or belief or movement or whatever you want to call it. One can be or be not. Talk is bullcrap. "Environmentalism" is about talk and politics and taking control away from people and their lives, and it's about making money. It's not about reducing consumption and waste. Not at all. You also bring up PeTA. Let's instead talk about the label "Animal Rights Activist". I am opposed to factory farms and slaughterhouses where animals are abused and tortured for profit. I'd like to see all of these either reformed or shut down. The abuse of animals is so severe that I consider it completely unethical to eat products from these places. As a result, since I am a omnivore and veganism made me sick, I have to raise and hunt my own meat because that I have control over and can do so in as ethical and humane a manner as possible. Yes it involves killing but I do so with respect for the animal and its life. Those I raise have a good life before slaughter. I would much rather just buy humanely raised meat, that would be less trouble, but it's not possible in the US. Few others do this, that is their own business. But am I an "Animal Rights Activist"? Absolutely not. That is a label of cranks who do things like set fire to cars and destroy perfectly good fur coats. PeTA kills 85% of the animals it rescues. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and-eu...) Likewise with consumption. Wow it would be nice to drive around and fly and use air conditioning. Does your place of work have air conditioning? Mine does not because I choose not do do so because it is wasteful compared to a fan. Do you drive to work every day? I don't because it is outrageous to think that personal gas combustion vehicles is sustainable, and electric hybrids with their batteries are even worse. Do you raise most of your own food? I do. Screw the environmentalists, driving from meeting to meeting in their gas guzzling leaded gasoline running VW busses, and their private jets, and their olympic sized heated swimming pools, their destruction of the soil with their ethanol gas, their wasteful solar panels, and their refusal to get control over their own waste while they dare to dictate to others. The world would be better off without any of those outrageous hypocrites. The term "Environmentalist" has become an insult thanks to their efforts. Among these is Suzuki, a major leader of outrageous hypocrites. Rather than address his own wasteful consumption, he buys religious indulgences in the form of carbon credits to "offset" his waste. This is complete nonsense and those who participate in these scams are either deluded followers, or cult leaders trying to confuse their followers by example.
- dublinclontarf 15y ago
  I just won't wear that label, sure I care about having a clean environment, nice land yadda yadda but I wont describe myself as an environmentalist for reasons that others have pointed out in this thread.

redthrowaway 15y ago

Why aren't you an environmentalist? I'm not suggesting it's the only philosophy one can legitimately hold, but I'm wondering where your disagreement with the core tenets of environmentalism (sustainable growth and concern for human health and ecological balance) comes from.

dushan42 15y ago
Can't speak for dublinclontarf, but personally I'm not too concerned for the environment simply because I'm fairly indifferent as to whether mankind makes it or not. The Universe has been doing quite well without us for billions of years and will continue to do so if we are too dumb to keep our little rock habitable (which I suspect may be the case). Oh and we're not planning to have kids :)
- Cushman 15y ago
  Whether "mankind makes it" in the end matters or not, our not making it would involve millennia of avoidable human suffering. It's a little hard to care about anything without caring about that, which I think is what your parent was getting at.
  - dushan42 15y ago
    You are aware that mankind has subjected itself to avoidable suffering for as long as we could swing a stick, right? We have hundreds of millions suffering (avoidably might I add) right now and even if we somehow managed to keep Earth squeaky clean - I see a lot more avoidable suffering for the millennia to come. If anything, significantly reducing Earth's capacity to sustain humans may paradoxically result in diminished total human suffering (average suffering x number of humans) due to lower population. For what it's worth I do care, courtesy to my overly empathetic neural wiring. I'd argue that I am doing a lot more than my peers to reduce future human suffering simply by not contributing to the overpopulation. Not that any of it matters in the grand scheme of things ;) Keep fighting the good fight, I admire your zeal!
  - brianleb 15y ago
    > not making it would involve millennia of avoidable human suffering This premise assumes that in the situation where we "don't make it," the total amount of suffering by the end of the human race would be more than one in where we "do make it." Given that human suffering is caused by everything, I would say that if the race were to survive, there would be infinitely more suffering because we would have more time to inflict it. The premise seems to take for granted that the only way humans suffer is through harming our environment, which is of course not at all accurate. The only way to avoid human suffering is to immediately get rid of all humans; being in favor of existence, I have to argue that this is a fruitless position. Likewise, if animals can suffer, then the existence of animals causes suffering. Animals attack each other, eat each other, steal each others' food source and offspring. The only way to prevent animal suffering is to have no animals. If plants can suffer, then the existence of plants causes suffering as they compete for sunlight and nutrients and the 'losers' wither and die. I suppose my point is: any argument that involves potential existence causing suffering must ultimately come to these conclusions. I don't believe there is any other choice. Plants will never stop competing, animals will never stop competing, and humans will never stop competing. Also, if the crux of your argument is avoidable human suffering, then I would be very interested to know what defines unavoidable human suffering. [Just enjoying my Saturday morning by carrying out some debate]
    - Cushman 15y ago
      I don't think I buy that the idea of "total amount of suffering" makes sense. That suggests that a world with more people, who are each suffering less, would be a worse world overall by virtue of having more "total" suffering. That strikes me as strongly counterintuitive, and very hard to justify rationally, though I'd be happy to see the attempt. And in fact that seems to be the world we're living in. For example, in this TED talk[1] Steven Pinker makes the argument a person being born today — anywhere in the world, counting Iraq and Darfur — has less of a chance of dying at the hands of another person than at any time before in history. So I'm a little skeptical of the idea that the only way to make the human race feel better is to have less of it. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen...
bugsy 15y ago
I can't speak for him either, but I'll speak for those of us who are against destroying the environment but won't use the word environmentalist as it, like the word organic and the word christian, have been co-opted by evil bastards with corporate control agendas. Screw all that. It is impossible to take "environmentalism" seriously as a movement when you have people like Al Gore respected, and the Goldman Sachs controlled Carbon exchanges the purpose of which is obvious and it's not to reduce needless consumption.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Is libertarianism defined by Ayn Rand? Is capitalism defined by Donald Trump? Let's put Gore aside for a minute, and focus on the core issues. An environmentalist is someone who, fundamentally, sees the protection of the environment (for practical and/or idealogical reasons) as one of our most serious responsibilities. To say that certain people who identify with the movement are wrong, therefore the movement is wrong, is to say you can't believe in animal rights without being a PETA supporter. It's just a terribly flawed argument. Flipping it on it's head, I could say that environmentalism is beyond reproach because it has people like David Suzuki [1] as its champions. Those arguments simply don't hold water. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
  - bugsy 15y ago
    The deal with this is that I am an environmentalist in the traditional sense. I have an extremely low "carbon footprint" but not because I believe in the Goldman Sachs propaganda of doom. However, far less that 5% of "Environmentalists" I have ever met practice what they preach. It is a religion of mass hypocrisy, just like "Christianity", which likewise has almost nothing at all to do with its defined core teachings. Therefore, it is foolish to apply these labels anymore to the cause or belief or movement or whatever you want to call it. One can be or be not. Talk is bullcrap. "Environmentalism" is about talk and politics and taking control away from people and their lives, and it's about making money. It's not about reducing consumption and waste. Not at all. You also bring up PeTA. Let's instead talk about the label "Animal Rights Activist". I am opposed to factory farms and slaughterhouses where animals are abused and tortured for profit. I'd like to see all of these either reformed or shut down. The abuse of animals is so severe that I consider it completely unethical to eat products from these places. As a result, since I am a omnivore and veganism made me sick, I have to raise and hunt my own meat because that I have control over and can do so in as ethical and humane a manner as possible. Yes it involves killing but I do so with respect for the animal and its life. Those I raise have a good life before slaughter. I would much rather just buy humanely raised meat, that would be less trouble, but it's not possible in the US. Few others do this, that is their own business. But am I an "Animal Rights Activist"? Absolutely not. That is a label of cranks who do things like set fire to cars and destroy perfectly good fur coats. PeTA kills 85% of the animals it rescues. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and-eu...) Likewise with consumption. Wow it would be nice to drive around and fly and use air conditioning. Does your place of work have air conditioning? Mine does not because I choose not do do so because it is wasteful compared to a fan. Do you drive to work every day? I don't because it is outrageous to think that personal gas combustion vehicles is sustainable, and electric hybrids with their batteries are even worse. Do you raise most of your own food? I do. Screw the environmentalists, driving from meeting to meeting in their gas guzzling leaded gasoline running VW busses, and their private jets, and their olympic sized heated swimming pools, their destruction of the soil with their ethanol gas, their wasteful solar panels, and their refusal to get control over their own waste while they dare to dictate to others. The world would be better off without any of those outrageous hypocrites. The term "Environmentalist" has become an insult thanks to their efforts. Among these is Suzuki, a major leader of outrageous hypocrites. Rather than address his own wasteful consumption, he buys religious indulgences in the form of carbon credits to "offset" his waste. This is complete nonsense and those who participate in these scams are either deluded followers, or cult leaders trying to confuse their followers by example.
dublinclontarf 15y ago
I just won't wear that label, sure I care about having a clean environment, nice land yadda yadda but I wont describe myself as an environmentalist for reasons that others have pointed out in this thread.