First off, what “stuff” of mine have you read before, you lunatic?
Second, I thought it a bit kinder to gently mock you for how you phrased your stupidity than the stupidity itself. Environmentalists have mental disorders? What the fuck is wrong with you?
“Stuff” as in material you have written before. I didn’t call you names, but seeing as though you have initiated the namecalling, you classless asshole. Nor have I written to mock your opinions in the past, have I? I will stand by what I said before, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results from each subsequent try.” Enviro-fascists and socialists are thus insane, thinking they can implement old, tired ideas and pass them off as new. Thinking that they will get different results this time from their implementation of totalitarian style goverment, centralizing the power and paralyzing the freedom of the people. Sorry bro, you are the lunatic. I pose the same question to you.[/quote]
Yes. All people who care about the environment want to implement a New World Order, where the Spotted Owl is our new Lord and Savior and decent, hard-working people–the salt of the Earth–are enslaved and beaten with SUV’s.
YES! All people must have the freedom to drive enormous FuckYouMobiles that get 8 gallons to the mile, and drill for oil directly in the brains of baby seals. Any thought we give to the future of the planet, and perhaps leaving it–if not better off–the same as we found it will surely lead to Big Brother watching us all.
Was that your point?
Oh, and…the doing something over and over again while expecting different results is not “insanity”. It’s being a schmuck.
While I’m doubting this at the moment, since new technologies always find ways to have unintended consequences that we didn’t forsee, it really doesn’t do fuck all for us right now, does it?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes we need to pick up after ourselves, but from my perspective in another 50 years we will have advanced enough technologically that we will have almost no impact on the environment, at least nothing more than we should have on it.
While I’m doubting this at the moment, since new technologies always find ways to have unintended consequences that we didn’t forsee, it really doesn’t do fuck all for us right now, does it?[/quote]
Very true, but so does poorly researched and poorly studied environmental interventions have unintended consequences on the environment. There are plenty of examples where well-meaning interventions in tending to “right” some environmental wrong turned out to be just as damaging or more so than the originally assumed problem.
Caring for the environment is a good thing, but not using good supported science to base your assumptions on can be just as destructive.
So while greenpeace has the right heart for what they are trying to do, they (and many other environmental activists groups) need to support reasonable solutions using broadly accepted scientific research.
I guess they missed the research that would have told them that running into a coral reef with a 10 ton ship might be damaging to the coral.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes we need to pick up after ourselves, but from my perspective in another 50 years we will have advanced enough technologically that we will have almost no impact on the environment, at least nothing more than we should have on it.
While I’m doubting this at the moment, since new technologies always find ways to have unintended consequences that we didn’t forsee, it really doesn’t do fuck all for us right now, does it?[/quote]
Your statement is misleading in several lights. #1 not all new technology has unforseen “negative” consequences, and even to say that “some” do is a bit of an overstatement. The few things man made that make the most pollution are many many many years old. For instance, wind farms don’t pollute the environment. We will be able to control our “footprint” on the environment very efficiently in the next 20-50 years, if you don’t believe it… well I don’t really care I guess.
#2 Most of what greenpeace is proposing is not probable and some is not possible nor will it help us “right now” either, so whats your point? Either back up your criticism of my statement with something that will improve the pollution problem of our world to an extent that is beneficial and that will do it “right now” or STFU.
Vegomatic, my point is not to back the viewpoint of Greenpeace (you apparently wish), simply to point out that waiting and hoping is a poor game.
–
As for “interventions”, howabout we simply stop creating so much damned pollution. I seriously doubt that reducing the amount of contaminants we spew could be considered a “negative intervention”.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Vegomatic, my point is not to back the viewpoint of Greenpeace (you apparently wish), simply to point out that waiting and hoping is a poor game.
–
As for “interventions”, howabout we simply stop creating so much damned pollution. I seriously doubt that reducing the amount of contaminants we spew could be considered a “negative intervention”.[/quote]
We have made a lot of progress in the environmemtal field but we still have a long way to go.
We need to continue to find better fertilizers and work with farmers to reduce runoff. We need all major wastewater treatment plants to expand treatment to include nitrogen and phosphorous removal. We need to do about a thousand other similar things.
These things are not sexy and do not get nearly as much press as the Greenpeace crazies do.
I think these nuts actually get in the way of real progress rather than contribute.
That’s it? That’s a post? I mean, come on, at least say something other than a purely trite piece of blather.
Why isn’t it simple? What are the issues involved? What things can we do that aren’t that difficult? Anything? Did I promise simplicity? Did I say that it would be easy? What are you trying to answer? Do you just feel a burning need to oppose our counter anything I say?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, do you somehow think I am advocating the absolute cessation of all activities that produce pollution?
I don’t know, but it seems like you read in extreme stances where there are none. Maybe I’m mistaken.[/quote]
Then what did you mean? The only way to stop the total destruction of our environments is to stop doing what we are doing. What does slowing it down do? Prolong the inevitable?
I’m not trying to take an extreme stance. I was pointing out the absurdity in thinking that the entire world will be lost because of our polluting ways.
We are in the midst of a population explosion. That means we have a shitload more people that require a shitload more food, clothing and shelter than the eath has ever been asked to provide before. It seems to me that just living and reproducing does more to harm the environment than a can of hairspray could do.
There is a price to pay for efficiency. It appears to me that the vast majority of the civilized world is prepared to pay that price - else we would not be haveing this conversation.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sounds good, but not so simple.
That’s it? That’s a post? I mean, come on, at least say something other than a purely trite piece of blather.
Why isn’t it simple? What are the issues involved? What things can we do that aren’t that difficult? Anything? Did I promise simplicity? Did I say that it would be easy? What are you trying to answer? Do you just feel a burning need to oppose our counter anything I say?
Sound good? Stop being so simple.[/quote]
vroom, I know you consider CO2 a pollutant from your postings in the various global warming threads. Stop producing it for a day and find out how simple it is.
Maybe not breathing for a day is a bit to extreme for you?
And yes you did say it was simple when you said:
“how about we simply stop creating so much damned pollution.”
If you want to get into a mindless pissing match go ahead and do it with RJ. I don’t like playing those silly games.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Sounds good, but not so simple.
That’s it? That’s a post? I mean, come on, at least say something other than a purely trite piece of blather.
Why isn’t it simple? What are the issues involved? What things can we do that aren’t that difficult? Anything? Did I promise simplicity? Did I say that it would be easy? What are you trying to answer? Do you just feel a burning need to oppose our counter anything I say?
Sound good? Stop being so simple.
vroom, I know you consider CO2 a pollutant from your postings in the various global warming threads. Stop producing it for a day and find out how simple it is.
Maybe not breathing for a day is a bit to extreme for you?
And yes you did say it was simple when you said:
“how about we simply stop creating so much damned pollution.”
If you want to get into a mindless pissing match go ahead and do it with RJ. I don’t like playing those silly games.[/quote]
That is exactly what he wants. I posted something that basically agreed with his views almost to a T and yet he still picked at it and attempted to provoke me. Oh well, guess we have to let the little guy have his fun.