Environmentalists Gone Wild

[quote]Hundreds of years after we have become rich and comfortable by removing our forests and exploiting our natural resources such as coal, oil, and gold we are now going to the poorest countries on the planet to prevent them from doing what we did and having what we have. We want them to stay as ‘traditional peasants’ forgetting all the while that the poor people desperately want progress and desperately want to enjoy the good, healthy and long life we in the west take for granted.

“Mine Your Own Business” will make a lot of comfortable western people very uncomfortable indeed. It will show them the consequences of their blind faith in our new religion-the religion of environmentalism.

Phelim McAleer
July 2006[/quote]

http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/

What, no naked hippy chicks???

Show your tits, show your tits… [and we’ll vote to curtail greenhouse gases]

You’ve heard of the Industrial Revolution? Well, Environmentalism is part of the ANTI-INDUSTRIAL Revolution.

"[O]bserve that in all the propaganda of the ecologists?amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”?there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision?i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears. . . .

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

[Ayn Rand (1971), “The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive, 277.]

Headhunter,

Sometimes competing ideologies both have something to offer.

Maybe, just maybe, we can be an industrialized society without being totally careless and having total disregard for the environment.

Wow, what a concept.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go release PCB’s, dioxin and DDT into the local stream just for the hell of it.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go release PCB’s, dioxin and DDT into the local stream just for the hell of it.[/quote]

Sweet! I thought I was the only one who did that. I sure do love me so good ol’ DDT.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, we can be an industrialized society without being totally careless and having total disregard for the environment.
[/quote]

He isn’t talking about “us.” He’s talking about emerging, pre-industrial and industrializing countries, who are being pressured not to industrialize because it might be bad for the environment.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
vroom wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, we can be an industrialized society without being totally careless and having total disregard for the environment.

He isn’t talking about “us.” He’s talking about emerging, pre-industrial and industrializing countries, who are being pressured not to industrialize because it might be bad for the environment.[/quote]

Exactly. If we want everyone in the world to have what we consider a middle class existence — enough to eat, a place to live, health care, and so forth — that requires an industrial, productive civilisation. That’s going to impact the environment. Until that impact becomes worse than the alternative of feeding, clothing, and housing the world, I choose the world.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
nephorm wrote:
vroom wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, we can be an industrialized society without being totally careless and having total disregard for the environment.

He isn’t talking about “us.” He’s talking about emerging, pre-industrial and industrializing countries, who are being pressured not to industrialize because it might be bad for the environment.

Exactly. If we want everyone in the world to have what we consider a middle class existence — enough to eat, a place to live, health care, and so forth — that requires an industrial, productive civilisation. That’s going to impact the environment. Until that impact becomes worse than the alternative of feeding, clothing, and housing the world, I choose the world.

[/quote]

Neph threw you a life preserver didn’t he?

There is also a difference between consumerism as a philosophy and feeding, clothing and housing the populace of the world.

However, Mr Kumba-Ya, please note that so far we have done a dismal job of “feeding the world”.

Do you really think all of our industrialization is really geared towards looking after the basic necessities of humanity?

Hahahahaha. Come on man, stop looking for extremes and simple but useless trite comparisons. Think a little deeper about the issues and say something useful for a change.

Do you really think industrialization which is occurring in now is being driven by a need to feed, cloth and shelter? Guess how the industrialization is happening, where the money is coming from and the types of products that will be built.

Shoot, I’m not even against development or industrialization, before you waste a bullet on that shot! I just don’t think you have even the first fucking clue about the topic you’ve started… as usual.

And yes, of course, I recognize that giving people jobs in our overseas factories is a great way to give them incomes so they can start to buy consumer products like the rest of the world.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You’ve heard of the Industrial Revolution? Well, Environmentalism is part of the ANTI-INDUSTRIAL Revolution.

"[O]bserve that in all the propaganda of the ecologists?amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”?there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision?i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears. . . .

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

[Ayn Rand (1971), “The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive, 277.]
[/quote]

Isn’t this true for all species?

We could survive as animals as long as the most basic animal needs are met. But we’re above that because we are God’s chosen species.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go release PCB’s, dioxin and DDT into the local stream just for the hell of it.[/quote]

Sweet!

I’ll join you. I’m going to go to Home Depot and put lead in all the paints while no one is looking!

Those damn hippies! They banned lead paint.

[quote]vroom wrote:
There is also a difference between consumerism as a philosophy and feeding, clothing and housing the populace of the world.

However, Mr Kumba-Ya, please note that so far we have done a dismal job of “feeding the world”.

Do you really think all of our industrialization is really geared towards looking after the basic necessities of humanity?[/quote]

What? You mean the yearly production of millions of laptops, TVs, DVDs, clothing that is “in fashion” and constantly changing car models don’t feed the world?

Its not for the benefit of all humanity but merely for entertainment? I refuse to believe that sir.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Shoot, I’m not even against development or industrialization, before you waste a bullet on that shot! I just don’t think you have even the first fucking clue about the topic you’ve started… as usual.

[/quote]

Knew you couldn’t do it…

I think you have self-esteem issues there, bud.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You’ve heard of the Industrial Revolution? Well, Environmentalism is part of the ANTI-INDUSTRIAL Revolution.

"[O]bserve that in all the propaganda of the ecologists?amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”?there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision?i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears. . . .

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

[Ayn Rand (1971), “The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive, 277.]

Isn’t this true for all species?

We could survive as animals as long as the most basic animal needs are met. But we’re above that because we are God’s chosen species.[/quote]

Man’s primary characteristic is his rational faculty. This is our unique and defining characteristic. Other characteristics are secondary. It therefore follows that man needs to produce what he needs to survive as the rational animal. He might survive by living in a cave, naked, in a warm climate. But pretty soon, it might be a good idea to produce some clothing, grow some food, and so forth. What other animal does those things?

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
vroom wrote:
There is also a difference between consumerism as a philosophy and feeding, clothing and housing the populace of the world.

However, Mr Kumba-Ya, please note that so far we have done a dismal job of “feeding the world”.

Do you really think all of our industrialization is really geared towards looking after the basic necessities of humanity?

What? You mean the yearly production of millions of laptops, TVs, DVDs, clothing that is “in fashion” and constantly changing car models don’t feed the world?

Its not for the benefit of all humanity but merely for entertainment? I refuse to believe that sir.[/quote]

Enjoying life is an essential part of being alive. If it bothers you that some people freely produce products to make life better and these are freely bought by those who desire same, then simply don’t buy any of those products.

Freedom’s a bitch, isn’t it?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Man’s primary characteristic is his rational faculty. This is our unique and defining characteristic. Other characteristics are secondary. It therefore follows that man needs to produce what he needs to survive as the rational animal. He might survive by living in a cave, naked, in a warm climate. But pretty soon, it might be a good idea to produce some clothing, grow some food, and so forth. What other animal does those things?

[/quote]
What makes man’s primary characteristic his “rationality”? How do you know other species do not rationalize? We know there are other “intelligent” species; just because we do not know whether they can contemplate their own thoughts and ideas doesn’t mean they do not rationalize. I know I’ve seen apes use tools to acquire food which requires at least a minimal ability to rationalize. We may be more intelligent but does that mean by nature we must be rational creatures?

Also, our opposable thumb and ability to walk upright distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom which makes it possible to act on our intelligence in ways that we would not be able to otherwise.

Who is to say we wouldn’t have physically adapted to the climate by growing more body hair or the ability to pack on more body-fat to sustain us during long harsh winters? Intelligence may account for man’s ability to survive in conditions that otherwise are not guaranteed by our current physiology; however, note that clothing is not a need in very warm climates (in fact it is more of a hindrance in hot and humid climates) where it is theorized Homo sapiens were “born”.

Interestingly, it is theorized that a major branching point in species evolution occured when brain size began to increase in relation to body size which may indicate the importance of intelligence in early species reproduction. I’ll see if I can find a reference for this comment.

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
vroom wrote:
There is also a difference between consumerism as a philosophy and feeding, clothing and housing the populace of the world.

However, Mr Kumba-Ya, please note that so far we have done a dismal job of “feeding the world”.

Do you really think all of our industrialization is really geared towards looking after the basic necessities of humanity?

What? You mean the yearly production of millions of laptops, TVs, DVDs, clothing that is “in fashion” and constantly changing car models don’t feed the world?

Its not for the benefit of all humanity but merely for entertainment? I refuse to believe that sir.[/quote]

Oh please, once toothbrushes were considered to be sinful luxuries as were water toilets and a second pair of shoes.

Yesterdays luxuries are todays necessities and tomorrows banalities.

They allways are the motor of development.

Headhunter claims man is a rational animal.

I rest my case.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Enjoying life is an essential part of being alive. If it bothers you that some people freely produce products to make life better and these are freely bought by those who desire same, then simply don’t buy any of those products.

Freedom’s a bitch, isn’t it?[/quote]

That’s not what I’m arguing against.

You said that the purpose of industrialization is to “feed the world”.

I called your bullshit and said that industrialization is mostly to produce shit that we want and shit we think we want. Entertainment, stuff to make tasks easier, and etc.

You wrote earlier:
If we want everyone in the world to have what we consider a middle class existence — enough to eat, a place to live, health care, and so forth — that requires an industrial, productive civilisation.
-Headhunter

I didn’t say that I didn’t enjoy the comforts of having such things, I just said that you are wrong in your speculation.

-Bruce

[quote]orion wrote:
Oh please, once toothbrushes were considered to be sinful luxuries as were water toilets and a second pair of shoes.

Yesterdays luxuries are todays necessities and tomorrows banalities.[/quote]

True. But there is a point where you get into excess.

What necessities of the future do you see around you?

TVs? Hundreds of DVDs? Maybe the iPOD. Maybe a garage full of automobiles that are replaced on a yearly basis.

You cannot compare something like a toothbrush and shoes to the other junk. Those things are not a necessity but a luxury and used for entertainment.