A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Inputting more energy to get the same ammount of material at the end is not more productive.
Vincent Vega said:
That's perfectly right, yet greater efficiency is more valuable than greater energy use.
So a bulldozer consuming 10 liters/hour for that work is worse off than a bulldozer that consumes 5 liters/hour for the exact same work.
That's progress.
INDY500 said:
Sure, after the innovation comes improvement. Before the shovel we dug with a bone.
Most people I argue with about this, like yourself, have good intentions, only want to leave a better world for their children. But I believe, at it's core, the goal of hardcore environmentalists isn't the lowering of CO2 emissions through efficiency to save our planet (or why be so stridently opposed to nuclear and hydroelectric power?) It's to choke off economic expansion and population growth, redistribute wealth and change ownership from private to government control.
In other words, good old fashioned Marxism, but now wrapped-up in a postmodern philosophy that views Man not as part of nature, but as a bane to it's ultimate survival.
Angela Harlem said:i can't believe this thread.
INDY500 said:But I believe, at it's core, the goal of hardcore environmentalists isn't the lowering of CO2 emissions through efficiency to save our planet (or why be so stridently opposed to nuclear and hydroelectric power?) It's to choke off economic expansion and population growth, redistribute wealth and change ownership from private to government control.
A_Wanderer said:radical environmentalists and eco-terrorists.
Irvine511 said:
you realize, of course, that this conspiracy theory is as wild as if i told you that George Bush is seeking to ban marriage equality in order to reduce gays into the 3/5ths status of African-Americans in the 19th century so that we can strip them of personhood and send them to reeducation "straight" camps.
i mean, seriously. it's just as crazy.
Greens on the Left adhere to Eco-socialism, an ideology that combines ecology, environmentalism, socialism and Marxism to criticise the capitalist system as the cause of ecological crises, social exclusion, inequality and conflict. Many Green Parties are avowedly eco-socialist but most Green Parties around the world have or have had a large Eco-socialist membership. This has lead some on the right to refer to Greens as "watermelons" -- green on the outside, red in the middle.
Do we draw the line between mainstream groups like Greenpeace and those like Earth First!? I was making the point that there are hardline collectivists out there with an agenda but the are so irrelevent to the mainstream dialogue and politics theres no point in raising it.Angela Harlem said:
are we still talking about people who want to clean up this planet, or has it evolved into anyone but those who want to clean up the planet?
how can some of you not see this.
I cannot believe the links some of you are forging. It's the stuff of fairytales.
Hardliners make the mainstrain lazy population think. mainstrain is comfortable and does not take to much risk and even more important, it is cheap on the short therm.A_Wanderer said:Do we draw the line between mainstream groups like Greenpeace and those like Earth First!? I was making the point that there are hardline collectivists out there with an agenda but the are so irrelevent to the mainstream dialogue and politics theres no point in raising it.
Irvine511 said:
i go away for a few hours to eat dinner and watch American Idol
INDY500 said:
Sure, after the innovation comes improvement. Before the shovel we dug with a bone.
Most people I argue with about this, like yourself, have good intentions, only want to leave a better world for their children. But I believe, at it's core, the goal of hardcore environmentalists isn't the lowering of CO2 emissions through efficiency to save our planet (or why be so stridently opposed to nuclear and hydroelectric power?) It's to choke off economic expansion and population growth, redistribute wealth and change ownership from private to government control.
In other words, good old fashioned Marxism, but now wrapped-up in a postmodern philosophy that views Man not as part of nature, but as a bane to it's ultimate survival.
INDY500 said:But I believe, at it's core, the goal of hardcore environmentalists isn't the lowering of CO2 emissions through efficiency to save our planet (or why be so stridently opposed to nuclear and hydroelectric power?) It's to choke off economic expansion and population growth, redistribute wealth and change ownership from private to government control.
INDY500 said:
Sure, after the innovation comes improvement. Before the shovel we dug with a bone.
Most people I argue with about this, like yourself, have good intentions, only want to leave a better world for their children. But I believe, at it's core, the goal of hardcore environmentalists isn't the lowering of CO2 emissions through efficiency to save our planet (or why be so stridently opposed to nuclear and hydroelectric power?) It's to choke off economic expansion and population growth, redistribute wealth and change ownership from private to government control.
In other words, good old fashioned Marxism, but now wrapped-up in a postmodern philosophy that views Man not as part of nature, but as a bane to it's ultimate survival.
Diemen said:Something that was conspicuously absent from the original article.
yes,...it makes me think.A_Wanderer said:Do you reserve the same appreciation for those that declare global warming non-existent?
Angela Harlem said:wikipedia as a valid source? cue me, someone; do we laugh or cry?
some on the right refer to Greens as "watermelons" -- green on the outside, red in the middle.
INDY500 said:
Sure, after the innovation comes improvement. Before the shovel we dug with a bone.
Most people I argue with about this, like yourself, have good intentions, only want to leave a better world for their children. But I believe, at it's core, the goal of hardcore environmentalists isn't the lowering of CO2 emissions through efficiency to save our planet (or why be so stridently opposed to nuclear and hydroelectric power?) It's to choke off economic expansion and population growth, redistribute wealth and change ownership from private to government control.
In other words, good old fashioned Marxism, but now wrapped-up in a postmodern philosophy that views Man not as part of nature, but as a bane to it's ultimate survival.
INDY500 said:
Strange that you would make such a comment only after my clearly marked use of Wikipedia, and not the several instances that Ormus quoted from it.
INDY500 said:
Strange that you would make such a comment only after my clearly marked use of Wikipedia, and not the several instances that Ormus quoted from it.
The paragraph just happened to add voices to "my wild conspiracy theory" that there exists a sometimes cozy relationship between today's radical environmentalism and yesterday's Marxism.
Also strange that the subtlety hinted at financial relationship between Big Oil and any-and-all remaining global-warming skeptics--isn't considered equally crazy.
trevster2k said:People advocating change to mitigate the effects of climate change are hardly radical environmentalists or Marxists. It has nothing to do with climate change except attack the integrity of it's supporters.
To disregard the evidence of climate change and it's effects is laughable. Did these same people disregard the claims that smoking was harmful to people or worse yet, that second hand smoke was damaging to non-smokers? Did they not believe scientists when they discovered that leaded gasoline was poisoning us or that CFCs were eroding the ozone layer? I guess that smog stuff which affects the quality of life for people with lung afflictions by forcing them to stay inside is just a theory? Nah, human behaviour has no effect on the environment, what a silly concept.
Countries which fail to act and invest in efficient and new energy technologies will have short term economic benefits but in the long run will suffer as the world including developing nations use green energy technology. Canada is already losing ground with our government's inability to act. The fossil fuel industry has the most to lose from switching to alternative energy and will do whatever it takes to confuse people about green technologies meaning paying people to write ambiguous articles condemning the science and evidence behind climate change.
INDY500 said:I would think that as a Canadian you might actually see an upside to global warming. Most of your population lives near your southern border because the upper regions of the Northern hemisphere are climatically extreme for humans right?
elevated_u2_fan said:
Most of our population also lives in areas below sea level so no... That would not be a good thing.