I'm outta here

Okay don't get your hopes up.

I'm just talkin earth day, 8-9 p.m. Saturday.

This computer will definitely be turned off, along with every non-essential piece of electricity in the house.

This will be another example of trans-border brother hood and sister hood for a greater cause.

As deists, especially as deists, folks let's observe earth hour. Let us show the power of people. This year we affect change on a small scale. Just a practice run, bigger things to come, let us be hopeful.

Tomorrow night between 8-9 p.m., let's not talk to each other.

Turn off the lights.

Meditate, procreate, create.

But give our ol' mother earth an hour off.

As a deist ...

I beseech you!

Planting a couple of trees would probably help the Earth more than just using less power for an hour. Maybe even buy energy saving light bulbs and start recycling? I use energy saving light bulbs and recycle cans. I don't really do it to help the Earth. I do it to save money but I'm sure the Earth doesn't care. If you haven't bought energy saving light bulbs then I recommend you do because you will save money, use less energy, and celebrate Earth Day all year long. You can even give them as gifts to family and friends. Also, Spring is here! So, add some plants to your yard. Peace my friend and I hope you have a great Earth Day!

I plan on planting some phlox and pachysandra in the yard today. Does that count?

Oh and yeah, I'll see what I can do about the power.

Helium wrote:

Okay don't get your hopes up.

I'm just talkin earth day, 8-9 p.m. Saturday.

This computer will definitely be turned off, along with every non-essential piece of electricity in the house.

This will be another example of trans-border brother hood and sister hood for a greater cause.

As deists, especially as deists, folks let's observe earth hour. Let us show the power of people. This year we affect change on a small scale. Just a practice run, bigger things to come, let us be hopeful.

Tomorrow night between 8-9 p.m., let's not talk to each other.

Turn off the lights.

Meditate, procreate, create.

But give our ol' mother earth an hour off.

As a deist ...

I beseech you!

If one hour is good, 24 hours would be better, right? So why not turn off your computers and your TV's and your lights and your AC permanently!

When you get tired of living in a cave, we'll be here.

I agree with Paul. It is the same thing with minimum wage too. Why just make it $9, why not increase it to $29/hr? After all, if artificially increasing wages is good for the laborers and the economy (aka stimulus package) then the more we increase it the better off we would be. After all, that is precisely the policy that was followed throughout the massive gov't expenditure during the 50s and 60s, that eventually came to bite us in the 70s with its stagflation--a phenomenon not much different than what we may be experiencing now in the United States.

As it turns out, most good intentioned ideas that come from the left often have nefarious consequences. Human history is filled with plethora of horrors that began with good intentions.

I simply ask: what does such a clumsy earth day celebration signify? Switching off lights of entire cities appears to be a symbol not of conservation (placing more efficient lightbulbs would more aptly symbolize that) but instead they symbolize a naive and horrifying affection for the primitive wild.

I for one have all the lights on in my apartment right now; all the lights that are necessary that is--for my room is dark and I'm typing this in the dark because sometimes I like to sit in the dark after I get up from a deep sleep.

I think I'm going to dig a hole and pour anti-freeze into it for Earth Day - just doing my part to combat Global Warming!

Okay, folks I'm back outta the cave.
And let me report.
No, first of all, let me express a bit of jealousy. Aaron's out planting, enjoying the spring. What were those things you were planting. Never heard of them before. I'm a bit jealous because spring's been slow to take in Toronto. Yeah, hate to admit this to the latter three deists, but this has been one of the snowiest, coldest winters ever in Toronto. My backyards still completely covered in snow and up by the deck there's still the snow that I shovelled off the roof weeks ago so it's still three feet. Unbelieveable.

And thanks for your thoughts Schizo. It was a most pleasant earth day.

At 8 p.m. we had all the lights off and the living room lit with about 15 candles. I cheated a bit cause I wanted to finish the dishes so I used by camping lantern which uses battery power which is actually worse than flipping the switch I guess.

Then we went outside into the cold and couple of our neighbours were out so we chewed the fat while more than half a dozen kids between the ages of 7 and 13 alternated between tag and hide n seek.

The adults were lost in conversation when we noticed a bunch of lights come on, and we noted, earth hour must be over.

Now I'm definitely not out to be holier than thou for once here.

I participated more because the city of Toronto was an early official partiicpant to this second annual event which, of course, started in Sydney last year.

I think the best way to respond to the latter three grumpy posters is what I think is a clever debating ploy in which I'll make the case for earth hour using Libertarian principles.

One, it was completely voluntary with no pressure exerted actually.

Two, I can only speak for Toronto, but I believe it was people generated. I know the Toronto STar had a story every day for weeks leading up to the event. Now you can scoff at this and criticize it, but I'm sure you appreciate that it's all private momey being spent where they want to spend it.

Three, there was no official government involvement. I'm pretty sure in Toronto, at least, that no government money was spent and there was not pressure from government to participate. In fact at the end of the day, the hour, I contend, would have saved taxpayers money because government did participate by turning off lights. So it saved money. Every switch turned off was uncoerced and totally voluntary. And I believe no one's freedom was in anyway shape or form curtailed.

Four. Actually I would argue that what we witnessed is the power of people to act externally to the government. I would think this would make our Libertarians proud, actually. I mean this idea started in Australia in Sydney. I think it showed a real people power to act united WITHOUT government.

Five. People that I interacted with had fun.

So in conclusin. It was done by private people with no government money or coercian involved, there was no pressure exerted on those who didn't want to participate, it ended up saving taxpayers dollars, it turned the spotlight on the environment, and everyone had fun.

Count me in, next year.

... or should I say count me out!

Helium wrote:

Okay, folks I'm back outta the cave.
And let me report.
No, first of all, let me express a bit of jealousy. Aaron's out planting, enjoying the spring. What were those things you were planting. Never heard of them before.

Phlox


and...

Pachysandra


They're common ground covers here in New England.

It's been cold here too BTW. Not as bad as you though.

Helium wrote:

Yeah, hate to admit this to the latter three deists, but this has been one of the snowiest, coldest winters ever in Toronto. My backyards still completely covered in snow and up by the deck there's still the snow that I shovelled off the roof weeks ago so it's still three feet. Unbelieveable.

Yes, that is officially known as "Global warming".

Helium wrote:

So in conclusin. It was done by private people with no government money or coercian involved, there was no pressure exerted on those who didn't want to participate, it ended up saving taxpayers dollars, it turned the spotlight on the environment, and everyone had fun.

Did you know? The first year, it was later determined that as a result of about half of the households turning off their lights for that hour, electric consumption dropped by......




2%



I didn't make that up. What it proves, aside from the fact that people do things for emotional reasons that have nothing to do with reality, is that lighting constitutes a very small part of our energy use.

Which means changing your light bulbs will be similarly ineffective.

Lookin' good, Aaron!

Quote :

Helium wrote:

Yeah, hate to admit this to the latter three deists, but this has been one of the snowiest, coldest winters ever in Toronto. My backyards still completely covered in snow and up by the deck there's still the snow that I shovelled off the roof weeks ago so it's still three feet. Unbelieveable.

PA wrote
Yes, that is officially known as "Global warming".

Well certainly from appearances from the perspective of a Toronto resident it would appear that global warming is vastly overrated.

However, science does not discern the truth based upon appearances, and for a global issue would certainly not attempt to discern a global truth from a tiny spot on the globe (i.e. Toronto).

Science analyzes trends and stats from all over the globe over many years to come to its conclusions.

I'm no expert on Global warming.

I know the Libertarians here are highly suspicious of any attempt to imply a global warming, let alone that that global warming is in part authored by mankind.

I've got an open mind, and I consider that we are a cause of global warming.

I think one of my reasonings is man's affect on the world. We have caused huge changes through our actions. EVen without debating the merits of those changes, my point is that we can cause big changes.

Why just this past week I read a news article that polar bears were going to be in real danger from chemicals. My God these are polar bears that are thousands of miles away from civilazations. But they of course are at the top end of the food chain.

The scientific american mag had an article how the bluefish tuna will be fished to extinction because of sushi (is that a leftist magazine too?)

So even Paineful has agreed with me on the ecological and evironmental affect that our species exerts. Again I'm not even arguing whether for good or for bad. I'm just arguing that we, indeed, have that impact.

So on all these fronts mankind is causing massive and uncontestable change. Again please note, at this point I'm not even judging the change.

Yet for global warming, you and certain other LIbertarians continue to believe that it's all a leftist plot. Well if we can have such in impact in all these other areas, It seems reasonable that we may indeed be affecting global warming.

Now I guess you and AVerroes part ways here. Averroes I think has finally come around to accepting that it's manmade, but I think his opinion is that man is a natural part of nature so whatever we do is natural. We'll do what we do, and mother nature will handle it, and we'll adapt. Again I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, just actually, for a change, trying to honestly distillate his opinion. If I'm wrong I know he'll correct me. This is a valid point. I'm not saying I agree with it. But it is a valid point.

Helium wrote:

Science analyzes trends and stats from all over the globe over many years to come to its conclusions.

Science can't accurately predict the weather forecast for next Tuesday.

Helium wrote:

I'm no expert on Global warming.

Neither are the "experts".

Helium wrote:

I know the Libertarians here are highly suspicious of any attempt to imply a global warming, let alone that that global warming is in part authored by mankind.

On the contrary, Man has had an affect on the environment all along. Environmentalists try to argue that it is technology that is at fault, but primitive tribes caused the extinction of some species by over-hunting. Nothing new there.

We are having a greater impact on the environment now, because there are so damn many of us! But, if you took away all our modern technology, every one of the millions of people on the planet would be building fires to stay warm. Do you think the air would be cleaner? Everyone would be riding horses or using them to pull wagons. Millions of horses! Can you imagine what a freeway would look like after rush hour if everyone was riding a horse to work? And the stench!

Helium wrote:

Why just this past week I read a news article that polar bears were going to be in real danger from chemicals. My God these are polar bears that are thousands of miles away from civilazations. But they of course are at the top end of the food chain.

Yes, we are allowing chemicals into the land and water, affecting our own food supply, damaging the lower life forms - and ourselves. Blame that on the pharmaceutical industry and the stupidity of Man, who thinks there should be a pill for every minor discomfort that arises from living. But, that's another topic. What does that have to do with "Global Warming"?

Helium wrote:

Now I guess you and AVerroes part ways here. Averroes I think has finally come around to accepting that it's manmade, but I think his opinion is that man is a natural part of nature so whatever we do is natural. We'll do what we do, and mother nature will handle it, and we'll adapt.

It's not entirely man-made. Climate change is cyclical, and always has been. Man has affected it, but if all of Mankind disappeared there would still be climate change.

Nature will adapt. It always has. The adaption may make life as we know it impossible, but the planet will survive. So, there's no need to "save the planet". What we really need to save is our own sorry hides, and we can do that by adapting to the climate changes. If the oceans are going to rise, maybe we should relocate to higher ground. (Why rebuild New Orleans below sea-level?) Climate change is not entirely our fault, but if it wipes us out, that will be our fault.

"Global Warming" is a misnomer, and largely just a boogeyman that the MSM and politicians wave around to panic the herd.

However, Climate Change is happening, it has always happened, and always will.

Quote :

Helium wrote:



Science analyzes trends and stats from all over the globe over many years to come to its conclusions.

PA wrote
Science can't accurately predict the weather forecast for next Tuesday.

no, but scientists can accurately measure the temperatue last Tuesday, and then compare it with previous years, and then they come up with a trend.

They can do other things too, like analyze the composition of the atmosphere, and measure it with previous years and then come up with a trend.

So I guess here's the issues.

A) Is their global warming. How much.

B) Is man causing the global warming

The Libertarians I've talked to so far either.

A) do not believe there's global warming.

B) if they do believe there's global warmng, don't believe man has any significant role behind it.

C) or even if you can convince them that there is global warming and mankind is behind it, they don't care anyway.

Cause mankind kicks ... (rhymes with glass).

Also the majority of scientists whose observations and measurements indicate a global warming are all, to a person, part of big leftist plot.

While the few scientists still denying global warming are the remaining lighthouses for the truth.

I think that fairly sums it up.

Quote :

Nature will adapt. It always has. The adaption may make life as we know it impossible, but the planet will survive. So, there's no need to "save the planet". What we really need to save is our own sorry hides, and we can do that by adapting to the climate changes. If the oceans are going to rise, maybe we should relocate to higher ground. (Why rebuild New Orleans below sea-level?) Climate change is not entirely our fault, but if it wipes us out, that will be our fault.

This is the essence of my anthropocentric environmentalism.

The problem with a lot of this environmental hype is not that it is not real, it is just that those that believe it and recommend outlandish remedies or ritualistic celebrations, such as earth day, have a wrong philosophic orientation (a different orientation than those with anthropocentric values as opposed to biocentrist deep ecological holism) that places the "original" unravished earth on the pedestal. Their view of human development is aptly labeled by them as the "rape of the Earth."

The question that no one in the environmental movement is answering is: If we turn off all technology, and go back to the 18th century, will we be able to reverse the tide of global warming?
There are three alternatives here:
1. Global warming is cyclical and thus there is nothing that humans can do to change it (Paul's view).
2. Global warming is influenced by human agents but the process is fundamentally irreversible (my view).
3. The Global warming is the result of human agency and thus by restricting human development we can go back to some haloed golden age (Helium's view).

According to the Wall Street Journal's March 24th. edition (wholly dedicated to pro green business and pro green policies) the authors of "Limits to Growth"--the Club of Rome--acknowledge that back in the 70s they were too optimistic about the reversibiliy of climate change. According to their new consensus we may have crossed the global warming rubicon decades ago and thus the change is something that is going to happen.

And so, as it seems, Paul's solution (which is also what I've been advocating all along) is the only real solution. The problem is that it smacks of victory for the free market and anthropocentric (human centered) philosophies rather than the savagery know as deep ecology and its collectivist/holistic biocentric view that places man at par with all other living organisms. This is fundamentally an evil ideology--and like most evil it oft appears a wolf in sheep's guise. It is communism taken on to a spiritual level, combined with the metaphysics of the east disguised under the facade of western terms such as human rights, animal rights, preservation, conservations, and sustainability.

But the bottom line is: Conceding that global warming is happening, what is the best course to traverse? As it would appear that the course of freedom, or free markets, and of free individuals has always been the right solution; save for those that do not believe in human rights. But if they don't, as they confess that they do not, then it is hard to imagine that they have the true benefit of mankind as their concern.

Here in NZ we kept Earth day. As a nation we saved 28%, not too awful actually, as well my wife and I are planitng trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, sedges, and the dog if she doesn't get out of our way while we are doing it!

I don't know if we are causing global warming but I like to follow the tradition of the people from the Ice Age. They hoped the Earth would warm up and I hope for the same. Now that we are in a Temperate Age I hope it doesn't stop heating up yet. I want to be in the first generation of the Tropical Age. I hate winter and I love the Mad Max movies! I won't miss sledding! So, bring it on!

I don't think we need to try to save the Earth to reduce, reuse, and recycle. I think it can be done just from becoming cheap capitalists. All three of those things save money. So, stop trying to save the Earth and start trying to save money!

I think I have a pretty good solution for protecting endangered species. To keep them from going extinct instead of making animal sanctuaries that are funded by people being charitable, we can also mass produce animals to sale in the free market. We wouldn't have to worry about people killing animals for their hides and ivory to sale in the black market. We can breed these animals and sale them in the free market. It works for cows and chickens. They both will never go extinct. No animal does that is mass produced. So, why not?

I think instead of Earth Day having an anti-capitalist and anti-progress cause behind it, it should be the opposite. It should be a day to be thankful for all the resources the Earth has provided for the betterment of mankind and about how a free market can do the best job at managing our resources than any other economic system.

Well said Schizophretard!

Indeed, with our trust in human ingenuity and the new biotech revolution at hand, the most efficient way of salvaging animals would be to genetically engineering them for commercial markets. My favorite would be a dog like loyal lion or tiger that also knows how to cleanup after itself like a cat.

There are myriads of obvious solutions to any of our problems with the commons, but they usually begin with someone owning the cost and the benefits; which is something that the anti property rights left will not allow.

There is a bigger problem with the anti freedom movement (whether it be on the left, on commerce, or on the right, on culture) and that is it's penchant for origniality. The problem is that there is no such thing as "original" in nature. The nature of the world has always been a simulacra and this notion of "original" for human organization has usually been a call for a return to the anciene regime of heirarchic rigidity.

It is suprising for me to see the genuine astonishment in the faces of the contemporary left when I show them their resemblance to the forces of early modern conservativism. That much of their policies are in fact what the authoritarians of the previous centuries had oft argued in face of the liberal onslaught

Quote :

The problem is that it smacks of victory for the free market and anthropocentric (human centered) philosophies rather than the savagery know as deep ecology and its collectivist/holistic biocentric view that places man at par with all other living organisms. This is fundamentally an evil ideology--and like most evil it oft appears a wolf in sheep's guise. It is communism taken on to a spiritual level, combined with the metaphysics of the east disguised under the facade of western terms such as human rights, animal rights, preservation, conservations, and sustainability.

Averroes logic is that man is free to do what he wants to the earth. And he's correct. WE simply are free to do that because we have free will.

Those who freely take of the earth's resources for the their own gain are true Libertarian heroes, according to Averroes's logic, because they are exercising freedom.

But again let me use a LIbertarian defence (my new found weapon, it seems).

What of those who freely do NOT take of the earth's resources out of their own free will. It seems to me Averroes with his usual broad stroke has classified this entire category as either evil or presumably under the sway of evil advice.

Averroes, much like Bush, is apparently quick to decree an axis of evil. But I defend the above noted category, as ... NOT GUILTY as charged by Averroes.

People of their own free will may choose not to take of the earth's resources out of their own free will for various reason. Perhaps they are truly inspired by the earth and wish to look at it rather than destroy it.
Or perhaps they do feel that they are stewards of mother earth and wish to preserve it for others on the earth or for future generations. If they do so of their own free will, and if they haven't been coerced into it, or are not coercing anyone else then they are simply using Libertiarian privelege of free thought and free action.

Helium, you seem like someone who likes Natural Laws, so allow me to introduce you to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

About a generation ago, the environmentalists - those people who share your love of the earth and your desire to not take from it - managed to stop a lot of logging. Loggers, who made their living from trees, were careful not to destroy their livelihood. So they didn't chop down all the trees. They were selective about what they took and what they left. But thanks to those self-appointed protectors of Mother Earth, they were prevented from taking any.

The result was overgrowth, with new trees choking old trees and dead trees laying amidst the new undergrowth. But Mother Nature, it seems, doesn't like a messy forest. So forest fires cleaned up the mess the juvenile environmentalists allowed to occur.

If you really care for the earth, leave its care to professionals.

Helium wrote:

Averroes logic is that man is free to do what he wants to the earth. And he's correct. WE simply are free to do that because we have free will.

Those who freely take of the earth's resources for the their own gain are true Libertarian heroes, according to Averroes's logic, because they are exercising freedom.

But again let me use a Libertarian defence (my new found weapon, it seems).

What of those who freely do NOT take of the earth's resources out of their own free will. It seems to me Averroes with his usual broad stroke has classified this entire category as either evil or presumably under the sway of evil advice.

Please name one leftwing environmental group that advocates voluntary abstinance as the sole intent of their policies?

As usual you fail to understand my argument, switch it for something commical (strawman) and then presume to refute it.

All this time I've been advocating environmental protectionism. The difference is that my premises are humanitarian and homophilic not biophilic--and that makes all the difference. The issue is not, has never been, whether we ought to regulate the "commons" but rather to what extent and how do we guage the process. That requires certain philosophic dispositions and based upon their variations different people will come up with different answer; and will guage the cost/benefit quite differently.

The reason you cannot see compassion and conservation in individualist environmental remedies (you utterly fail to see that I'm infact proposing solutions to potential and actual problems that might occur) is because you do not believe in human rights. You don't even have a reason to support the policies that you seem to support except that it is the new cool thing to do, everyone seems to be in on it, and so you've jumped on the bandwagon. I don't mind people celebrating earth day or anti earth day; I'm merely questioning the wisdom of it. Am I not allowed that freedom, under your "new found libertarian defense?"

Repeatedly I've tackled this point with you in thread after thread, and in the end, after a long diatribe, you just end the topic by saying that you want to "mull over it;" and then a few days later the whole thing starts all over again.

Now, I don't mind a good debate; its just that I think that by now you should at least get my premises straight. You accuse me of broadstroking my opponents, but in case you've not noticed this is exactly what you've always done with your satire and punchlines.
Now, I'm willing to engage in a respectful exchange upon the condition that you'll not distort my argument. Please disagree with what I actually say, not some variant of it.


Let me give you an example of how our arguments typically proceed.

I say: We should not have minimum wages because it is a violation of freedom of contract and it increases unemployment by setting the floor higher than equilibrium

You say: So basically we should let the poor starve and not worry about those lazy retards who are too stupid to take care of themselves?

Averroes wrote

Quote :

As usual you fail to understand my argument, switch it for something commical (strawman) and then presume to refute it.

That is so, so unfair.

I start out with an admittedly lighthearted string about something I was excited about - earth day. To wit ...

Quote :

Okay don't get your hopes up.

I'm just talkin earth day, 8-9 p.m. Saturday.

This computer will definitely be turned off, along with every non-essential piece of electricity in the house.

This will be another example of trans-border brother hood and sister hood for a greater cause.

As deists, especially as deists, folks let's observe earth hour. Let us show the power of people. This year we affect change on a small scale. Just a practice run, bigger things to come, let us be hopeful.

Tomorrow night between 8-9 p.m., let's not talk to each other.

Turn off the lights.

Meditate, procreate, create.

But give our ol' mother earth an hour off.

As a deist ...

I beseech you!

I mean, basically I'm just humourously saying I'm participating in Earth Day, whaddaya all think.

Check out the responses. Most are actually just acknowledging that I said something which is quite fine, Aaron offers an aside that he's literally workin the earth on that day, Schitzo, PA, Uriah basically acknowledge in humour filled fashion although expressing their reservations about the whole stunt, or call it what you will.

But not Averroes.
Read his response.

Quote :

It is the same thing with minimum wage too. Why just make it $9, why not increase it to $29/hr? After all, if artificially increasing wages is good for the laborers and the economy (aka stimulus package) then the more we increase it the better off we would be. After all, that is precisely the policy that was followed throughout the massive gov't expenditure during the 50s and 60s, that eventually came to bite us in the 70s with its stagflation--a phenomenon not much different than what we may be experiencing now in the United States.

As it turns out, most good intentioned ideas that come from the left often have nefarious consequences. Human history is filled with plethora of horrors that began with good intentions.

I simply ask: what does such a clumsy earth day celebration signify? Switching off lights of entire cities appears to be a symbol not of conservation (placing more efficient lightbulbs would more aptly symbolize that) but instead they symbolize a naive and horrifying affection for the primitive wild.

And ya know what I don't mind this at all.

C'mon. It's overbearing, pompous and ridiculous.

Which, by the way, I don't mind. Why? Because I have the ability to refute it.

So I refute his obviously ridiculous response but then he accuses me of either A) stupidity or B) misrepresentation.

Man, ya know Averroes, I barely have time for this my self.


Anyways, I responded with what I think, actually, was a fairly positive and reasonable post. To wit ...

Quote :

One, it was completely voluntary with no pressure exerted actually.

Two, I can only speak for Toronto, but I believe it was people generated. I know the Toronto STar had a story every day for weeks leading up to the event. Now you can scoff at this and criticize it, but I'm sure you appreciate that it's all private momey being spent where they want to spend it.

Three, there was no official government involvement. I'm pretty sure in Toronto, at least, that no government money was spent and there was not pressure from government to participate. In fact at the end of the day, the hour, I contend, would have saved taxpayers money because government did participate by turning off lights. So it saved money. Every switch turned off was uncoerced and totally voluntary. And I believe no one's freedom was in anyway shape or form curtailed.

Four. Actually I would argue that what we witnessed is the power of people to act externally to the government. I would think this would make our Libertarians proud, actually. I mean this idea started in Australia in Sydney. I think it showed a real people power to act united WITHOUT government.

Five. People that I interacted with had fun.

So in conclusin. It was done by private people with no government money or coercian involved, there was no pressure exerted on those who didn't want to participate, it ended up saving taxpayers dollars, it turned the spotlight on the environment, and everyone had fun.

You know what Averroes, you accuse me of saying "I'll mull it over."
Well you didn't even mull that over. You didn't even respond to that simple positive response.

Instead your next post

Quote :

PA Quote:
Nature will adapt. It always has. The adaption may make life as we know it impossible, but the planet will survive. So, there's no need to "save the planet". What we really need to save is our own sorry hides, and we can do that by adapting to the climate changes. If the oceans are going to rise, maybe we should relocate to higher ground. (Why rebuild New Orleans below sea-level?) Climate change is not entirely our fault, but if it wipes us out, that will be our fault.


Averroes quoute
This is the essence of my anthropocentric environmentalism.

The problem with a lot of this environmental hype is not that it is not real, it is just that those that believe it and recommend outlandish remedies or ritualistic celebrations, such as earth day, have a wrong philosophic orientation (a different orientation than those with anthropocentric values as opposed to biocentrist deep ecological holism) that places the "original" unravished earth on the pedestal. Their view of human development is aptly labeled by them as the "rape of the Earth."

The question that no one in the environmental movement is answering is: If we turn off all technology, and go back to the 18th century, will we be able to reverse the tide of global warming?
There are three alternatives here:
1. Global warming is cyclical and thus there is nothing that humans can do to change it (Paul's view).
2. Global warming is influenced by human agents but the process is fundamentally irreversible (my view).
3. The Global warming is the result of human agency and thus by restricting human development we can go back to some haloed golden age (Helium's view).

According to the Wall Street Journal's March 24th. edition (wholly dedicated to pro green business and pro green policies) the authors of "Limits to Growth"--the Club of Rome--acknowledge that back in the 70s they were too optimistic about the reversibiliy of climate change. According to their new consensus we may have crossed the global warming rubicon decades ago and thus the change is something that is going to happen.

And so, as it seems, Paul's solution (which is also what I've been advocating all along) is the only real solution. The problem is that it smacks of victory for the free market and anthropocentric (human centered) philosophies rather than the savagery know as deep ecology and its collectivist/holistic biocentric view that places man at par with all other living organisms. This is fundamentally an evil ideology--and like most evil it oft appears a wolf in sheep's guise. It is communism taken on to a spiritual level, combined with the metaphysics of the east disguised under the facade of western terms such as human rights, animal rights, preservation, conservations, and sustainability.

But the bottom line is: Conceding that global warming is happening, what is the best course to traverse? As it would appear that the course of freedom, or free markets, and of free individuals has always been the right solution; save for those that do not believe in human rights. But if they don't, as they confess that they do not, then it is hard to imagine that they have the true benefit of mankind as their concern.

You accuse me of making a strawman. Well that above missive doesn't even approach answering my very specific and to the point statements. Instead YOU, sir, turn my very simple statements into your usual anti-leftist rant, which had nothing to do with my original posts, and then you slay the big bad dragon which of course you made up.

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth.
That's also bunk.
You do the same thing. To wit ...
Averroes said

Quote :

3. The Global warming is the result of human agency and thus by restricting human development we can go back to some haloed golden age (Helium's view).

Gimme a break that's not what I believe and it makes be look bad. But I don't cry about it because I and everybody knows it's not what I believe. It's what you accuse me of believing. And that's okay, it's a legitimate discussion or debating tool, because I can refute it.

So just be careful about complaining about smelling crap unless you're for certain where it's coming from.

Quote :

Helium, you seem like someone who likes Natural Laws, so allow me to introduce you to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Say thanks for the intro. I've thought of at least one other - smog.

Summer will soon be here and soon urban dwellers from across North American can look forward to massive heat waves in which the air is so foul they they can't step outside.

But at least they can go swimming ... er no. Not with waters as polluted as they are. But while they're there, they can at least fish. Better not eat them though, they're toxic.

What was that again, the law of unintended consequences?

Helium wrote:

Check out the responses. Most are actually just acknowledging that I said something which is quite fine, Aaron offers an aside that he's literally workin the earth on that day, Schitzo, PA, Uriah basically acknowledge in humour filled fashion although expressing their reservations about the whole stunt, or call it what you will.

But not Averroes.
Read his response.

I'm sorry I didn't realize that you had a monopoly over this thread. I forgot that I was not allowed to respond to anyone else but you; although, in all fairness I think it is you who failed to realize that my comment was in response to Paul, and not your holiday activity.

Averroes wrote:

Quote :

I'm sorry I didn't realize that you had a monopoly over this thread. I forgot that I was not allowed to respond to anyone else but you; although, in all fairness I think it is you who failed to realize that my comment was in response to Paul, and not your holiday activity.

In fact, the following does refer to my post. I stand by all my arguments and especially my last post. I would say that I'm gonna give this particular time consuming matter of principle a rest and let the people decide, however, I doubt that any people are left reading this but us. Anyway you accused. I defended. It is what it is.

Quote :

The problem with a lot of this environmental hype is not that it is not real, it is just that those that believe it and recommend outlandish remedies or ritualistic celebrations, such as earth day, have a wrong philosophic orientation (a different orientation than those with anthropocentric values as opposed to biocentrist deep ecological holism) that places the "original" unravished earth on the pedestal. Their view of human development is aptly labeled by them as the "rape of the Earth."