is enviornmentalism the new patriotism?

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Isn't it also great that China micromanages everyone's freedoms? Hell as just a small example, they limit how many hours you can play WoW. There is nothing about China that I want to bring over here short of their recipes for Lo Mein and Duck.

On the other hand, they don't bullshit their citizens. They don't arbitrarily define "free speech zones", they make it very clear that their speech is free to an extent instead of beating around the 'Bush'. Citizens also don't have a false sense of control as they do in a typical pseudo-democracy. China's political system is certainly better established. Hierarchy that is determined by qualifications and sensibility tends to work better than a dice roll and daylight bribery.

 

[mattjbak]

Originally posted by: Cold Steel
More like a religion.

So true! I have a sustainability in business course this year and here is a picture of my notes no joke....

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9918/photois7.jpg

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Isn't it also great that China micromanages everyone's freedoms? Hell as just a small example, they limit how many hours you can play WoW. There is nothing about China that I want to bring over here short of their recipes for Lo Mein and Duck.

On the other hand, they don't bullshit their citizens. They don't arbitrarily define "free speech zones", they make it very clear that their speech is free to an extent instead of beating around the 'Bush'. Citizens also don't have a false sense of control as they do in a typical pseudo-democracy. China's political system is certainly better established. Hierarchy that is determined by qualifications and sensibility tends to work better than a dice roll and daylight bribery.

It doesn't matter how clearly I am made aware of how little freedom I have. The bottom line is that I wouldn't have hardly any freedom and my life would still be micromanaged to a point where I would be very unhappy. While I realize that the US isn't exactly a pinnacle of ultimate freedom that is clearly defined, I am very much aware of what I am free to do and what I am not free to do. Most people that live here are aware of that and if they get into trouble they know why.

 

[manowar821]

Holy shit some of these responses are idiotically funny.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The bottom line is that my life would still be micromanaged to a point where I would be very unhappy.

You would be unhappy with a bit less WoW? They're just limiting what they deem addictive behavior. Countries that allow marijuana see the US in the same anti-liberal light. It's simply an extended stretch of a policy that exists anywhere else. All governments limit the way you live your life to an extent. Some would say for the better good, but even if not, these restrictions aren't all that restrictive. The Chinese perhaps have more social freedoms as a result of lax religious values.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Vic
It's in an individual's self-interest not to commit crime

The criminals would disagree.

Originally posted by: Vic
but that doesn't mean we rely solely on self-interest when crime occurs, does it?

Actually, I think it does, yes.

Contradict yourself much?

And wow... I read your ridiculous comments about China. For this point on, I'll just assume you're a troll.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Vic
For this point on, I'll just assume you're a troll.

I'll do something similar, however I'll replace "For" with "From", and "troll" with "pot bellied redneck"

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Vic
For this point on, I'll just assume you're a troll.

I'll do something similar, however I'll replace "For" with "From", and "troll" with "pot bellied redneck"

Oooh.... a grammar nazi. :Q

Yeah, that'll teach me from expressing basic libertarian ideals -- like that a collective shouldn't be allowed to do what an individual cannot -- on this message board again. I might get attacked by a China-apologist and Mr. Randite himself!

:roll:

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Vic
China-apologist

So the anti-China propaganda gave you the impression that rational contemplation of the country's situation should be condemned because America expects 1.2 Billion people to make cheap shoes and be paid with grains of rice for the next thousand years.

You dislike China, but you have no good reason for it. This goes back to the 'group think' problem which you're unfortunately a part of. A little too much FOX news. Pick a country to ridicule that's conveniently not your own.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Vic
China-apologist

So the anti-China propaganda gave you the impression that rational contemplation of the country's situation should be condemned because America expects 1.2 Billion people to make cheap shoes and be paid with grains of rice for the next thousand years.

You dislike China, but you have no good reason for it. This goes back to the 'group think' problem which you're unfortunately a part of. A little too much FOX news. Pick a country to ridicule that's conveniently not your own.

Who said I disliked China? Where did I say I disliked China?

See... this is the trolling bullshit I've been putting up from you this whole thread. It's safe to assume that if you actually had an argument, you wouldn't resort to constant lies.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who said I disliked China? Where did I say I disliked China?

Uh, it's right there in your last post:

Originally posted by: Vic
I hate China and I hate everything that comes out of China. That whole place is a disease of the earth.

[edit] Never mind, either I'm making things up or it seems to have conveniently disappeared :roll:

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
you live in a straw hut vic?

..no but he want's you to.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: mattjbak

Originally posted by: Cold Steel
More like a religion.

So true! I have a sustainability in business course this year and here is a picture of my notes no joke....

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9918/photois7.jpg

No, looks more like standard marketing.


Besides, how is sustainability ever a bad thing?

 

[0roo0roo]

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.http://www.usatoday.com/news/o...08-09-gore-green_x.htm

Facts and figures

The TCPR hasn't revealed how it obtained the usage figures attributed to Gore's household, though the press release claims the information came from the Nashville Electric Service, which denies it. How accurate are the figures? The Associated Press conducted its own examination of Gore's 2006 utility bills and found the TCPR's numbers to be slightly inflated, though the documents confirmed that the Gore family indeed consumes far more electricity in a year than the average American household. The correct amounts, as reported by AP, are as follows:

? Al Gore's average monthly electric bill in 2006: $1,200 (source: AP).

? Al Gore's total electric consumption in 2006: 191,000 kilowatt hours (source: AP).

? Average annual electric consumption per U.S. household (in 2001): 10,656 kilowatt hours (source: EIA).

Based on the above, Al Gore consumed roughly 18 times the national household average in kWh of electricity last year -- a differential which is probably only slightly mitigated by the following:

? The stated national household average, though accurate, is six years old and no doubt on the low side.

? Average usage varies widely by region. In Nashville, for example, where Gore lives, the average consumption per household is 15,600 kilowatt hours per year, almost 50% higher than the national average (source: AP).

? At 10,000 square feet, the Gore residence, which also houses the former vice-president's office, is more than four times larger than the average new home built last year in the U.S. (source: AP).

Even taking the above into account, Al Gore's power usage remains significantly higher than that of the typical U.S. household. How does he defend it?
http://urbanlegends.about.com/...t/a/al_gore_energy.htm

bush ranch more environmental than gores
http://urbanlegends.about.com/...bl_tale_two_houses.htm

 

[Throckmorton]

Al Gore uses green power, so that would negate the high power usage.


However, he's apparently largely reponsible for biofuel taking off, and therefore responsible for a lot of deforestation and world hunger.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Al Gore uses green power, so that would negate the high power usage.


However, he's apparently largely reponsible for biofuel taking off, and therefore responsible for a lot of deforestation and world hunger.

course thats making the assumption that consumption isn't consumption. it doesn't matter how you do it, it takes energy and resources to produce energy. its like the bs that is carbon credits where you pump out tons of c02 and pretend throwing money at someone else really makes it disappear.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: loki8481
in the line of generally positive things that have been completely co-opted by commercialism?

I'd like to think I live a somewhat environmentally friendly life... I walk or bike to work in the spring/summer/fall, I buy whatever I can local-grown, and I recycle all of my plastic/metal/paper/cardboard, but god damn am I tired of having all this "green" shit shoved down my throat.

I think the green carpet was the last straw for me... I mean, if a company wants to be environmentally friendly, that's great, but stop polluting the air with crappy commercials and mailing me crap that I just throw out.

I think "go green" is the new american flag bumper sticker.

Did anyone actually read this post(the first post the thread is based on)? It is a criticism of Commercialism and Marketing, not of Environmentalism.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
The thing that gets me the most is when people criticize others for not "believing" in global warming. Sounds a bit theocratic, dontcha think?

I criticize others for not seeing the warning signs and mountains of evidence that support global warming versus the tiny, tidy pile of evidence against it.

Some people think science is about belief (ie intelligent design, global warming, string theory, etc.). My "belief" is in whatever scientific theories most accurately describe the world around us based on the facts.

Global warming has enough science backing it that I believe it could be a significant problem if we don't work to prevent it. That's right, I can't predict the future. I'm not a climate expert, either; I listen to them because they're experts in their field. I *believe* we can prevent a looming disaster by being conscious of our environmental impact.

Maybe you have to actually be in a scientific field before it makes sense to believe other scientists... I don't know how people can keep a straight face when listening to the conservative pundits that belittle the threat of global warming. Why do people think that the talking heads can dole out science? Most of them are working for their own goals, so how can you take someone like Rush Limbaugh seriously when he tells you that global warming is a myth? Why would you listen to him and not the hundreds of climate scientists, experts in their field who have dedicated their whole lives to their work? A scientist gains nothing from alerting the public to a potential threat, real or fictional. The funding is there yearly regardless of whether everything is a-okay. The scientists aren't getting the book deals; the book deals go to the talking heads that talk about this stuff and don't actually know what they're doing!!!

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Al Gore uses green power, so that would negate the high power usage.


However, he's apparently largely reponsible for biofuel taking off, and therefore responsible for a lot of deforestation and world hunger.

I don't get it. What does Al Gore's power consumption have to do with anything anyway? He made a crappy movie that didn't get everything right anyway.

Global Warming is a problem, but not because Al Gore says so. The scientific community says so. There are always dissenting voices in the scientific community when it comes to any issue, even fundamental ideas like gravity meet opposition from time to time in the modern scientific world. So naturally there are some scientists that discredit the idea of global warming. The nay-sayers are in the minority. When a large community of scientists rallies together and tries to warn the world of a looming threat, shouldn't we at least listen?

We don't have to change our habits, but going around claiming that global warming is a big myth when there are countless brilliant scientific minds telling you otherwise is a huge waste of everyone's time. Science should not be the subject of propaganda campaigns, regardless of whether such campaigns are for or against a certain principle.

Al Gore's movie warning us about global warming is no better than the Fox News talk show hosts that try to unnecessarily rally people against the scientists. I don't get it. Where is the advantage in denying good science? Where is the advantage in blinding yourself to what is potentially a huge danger?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
It's more like the new communism. Fucking over free industry to make themselves feel good.

Industry is not "free" to pollute the property of others.

Which is why capitalists believe in something called "private property" which means that people who own property do not let it become ruined by the irresponsibility of others.

China, a former communist country, does not hold that attitude, and look how they are.

I think you were trying to make some sort of point, but it seems to have failed miserably considering how well China is doing.

Yeah, China is truly a world leader in pollution and poisoning their people. We should be more like them...

We shouldn't be like them. I think the amount of control the US government has over the states and the people is way too great already. I'd love to see a lot of the fat get cut.

He was pointing out that China is in a big economic and technology boom. You could say that they're experiencing now what we experienced in the 90s (although some analysts predict that their economic upturn is becoming the greatest in history). You can tell that someone is ignorant when they say, "Hah, look at how badly China is doing!" The country is doing incredibly well for itself, even though its average quality of living isn't good and its people lack freedoms. What's sad is that we're not much more free than the Chinese... there's less censorship, true, but we lack a number of freedoms that many Western nations have.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Al Gore uses green power, so that would negate the high power usage.


However, he's apparently largely reponsible for biofuel taking off, and therefore responsible for a lot of deforestation and world hunger.

I don't get it. What does Al Gore's power consumption have to do with anything anyway? He made a crappy movie that didn't get everything right anyway.

Global Warming is a problem, but not because Al Gore says so. The scientific community says so. There are always dissenting voices in the scientific community when it comes to any issue, even fundamental ideas like gravity meet opposition from time to time in the modern scientific world. So naturally there are some scientists that discredit the idea of global warming. The nay-sayers are in the minority. When a large community of scientists rallies together and tries to warn the world of a looming threat, shouldn't we at least listen?

We don't have to change our habits, but going around claiming that global warming is a big myth when there are countless brilliant scientific minds telling you otherwise is a huge waste of everyone's time. Science should not be the subject of propaganda campaigns, regardless of whether such campaigns are for or against a certain principle.

Al Gore's movie warning us about global warming is no better than the Fox News talk show hosts that try to unnecessarily rally people against the scientists. I don't get it. Where is the advantage in denying good science? Where is the advantage in blinding yourself to what is potentially a huge danger?

...science advances through hypotheses based on a set of assumptions. Other scientists challenge and test those assumptions in what philosopher Karl Popper called the practice of 'falsibility.' Trying to disprove hypothesis is what real science is all about. Yet the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would lead to significantly enhanced greenhouse warming was quickly accepted without this normal scientific challenge. As Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences said, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Adherents to the hypothesis began defending the increasingly indefensible by launching personal attacks, essentially trying to frighten scientific opponents into silence.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
It's more like the new communism. Fucking over free industry to make themselves feel good.

Industry is not "free" to pollute the property of others.

It has been so far, and it's worked out well.

No and no.

Sh!t on your land all you want for all I care, but naming yourself "industry" does not make you free to dump your garbage on someone else's property.
But if you were looking for "communism," this mentality of yours would be it, which is why communist countries have always had the worst environmental records of all.

:thumbsup: to your assessment. Sometimes NIMBY is a good thing to think of...

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The bottom line is that my life would still be micromanaged to a point where I would be very unhappy.

You would be unhappy with a bit less WoW? They're just limiting what they deem addictive behavior. Countries that allow marijuana see the US in the same anti-liberal light. It's simply an extended stretch of a policy that exists anywhere else. All governments limit the way you live your life to an extent. Some would say for the better good, but even if not, these restrictions aren't all that restrictive. The Chinese perhaps have more social freedoms as a result of lax religious values.

China limits you much more. Their government has far too much power.

 

[mcturkey]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: TehMac
Which is why capitalists believe in something called "private property" which means that people who own property do not let it become ruined by the irresponsibility of others.

China, a former communist country, does not hold that attitude, and look how they are.

I think you were trying to make some sort of point, but it seems to have failed miserably considering how well China is doing.

You mean so well that they've had to almost entirely shut down Beijing's industry and automotive transportation in order to clean up the air enough that Olympic athletes are willing to risk breathing it?

You know, all of the people here arguing against taking measures to reduce global warming seem to be taking the illogical position that it has to be a farce. As far as I'm concerned, the evidence that human pollution is damaging to the immediate environment is irrefutable (eg. smog around factories). Whether or not we're responsible for climate change is still open for debate among many people, and that is an important part of living in a free society. But the problem is, the argument doesn't matter - if we as a society chose to ignore global warming on the pretense that it was not influenced by human actions, we would be taking a gamble. And if we lost that gamble, we would not only suffer the consequences, but so would our children, our grand-children, and so on. It's simply too big a gamble for any reasonable person to accept.

I'm still skeptical that the current climate situation has been solely and directly caused by the last 150 or so years of human actions, but I'm certain we've had at least some impact.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
It's more like the new communism. Fucking over free industry to make themselves feel good.

Industry is not "free" to pollute the property of others.

It has been so far, and it's worked out well.

No and no.

Sh!t on your land all you want for all I care, but naming yourself "industry" does not make you free to dump your garbage on someone else's property.
But if you were looking for "communism," this mentality of yours would be it, which is why communist countries have always had the worst environmental records of all.

:thumbsup: to your assessment. Sometimes NIMBY is a good thing to think of...

Except I'm strongly opposed to NIMBY-ism, for the exact same reasons.