The Anti-Civilization Thread

[JustBob]

I must say that the pessimism expressed by a few posters in this thread is alarming.

Don't worry, Ziggy is still caught up in the nostalgia of May 68.

 

[JustBob]

They lead us to believe that still today, hunting for baby seals is allowed when in fact, it has been prohibited for 10 years. They are also using marketing techniques that goes against everything they are preaching. An example? During the recording of some footage, Humane Society left a wounded seal agonized during more than 40 minutes, only to capture the sensatonalism they were looking for. Not only that but when the seal tried to escaped, by painfully going to the nearest exit to water, one of the cameraman went and took it out of the water to bring it at the same place it was so they could continue filming… I was completely disgusted by this spectacle. If there is something which I hate as much as the right wing, it's the "good thinkers" who turns out to be total hypocrites.

Nothing new. When I worked for Greenpeace, I went around CEGEP's in Mtl showing a film to students about how horrible seal hunting was. This was no documentary. Most of the stuff was carefully setup and/or staged.

 

[JustBob]

Forget Greenpeace but answer my question: how's our environment doing these days according to you?

Not that great, but obviously, I don't believe that nonsense like Kyoto is the answer.

 

[Ducon]

what I do:
1. now own a car and go to work using nothing but my own muscles every day.
2. eat mostly organic food
3. vote green whenever I get a chance to.
4. try to save energy.

I would participate in demonstrations if I was aware of them.
Last time I heard of one in Montreal, it was finished and I couldn't find any information about who organized it. Even on the greenpeace website.
I was considering joining them just so that I can get informed on demonstrations, but I'm worried I might dislike some of their ideas and methods.
For example, I am in favor of nuclear power (and they are not). I think it's the best solution we have for this century (and maybe the next) to replace fossil fuel power plants ( except for countries led by to some religious nutter who wants to eradicate Israel )
because wind turbines and solar panels won't be enough.

 

[Agrippa]

Please don't mix up the cute-big-round-eye-very-easily-'sellable'-to-the-masses-baby-seal issue with more pressing issues.

Seriously, people give a damn about baby seals because they're cute. Not too many people gave a damn when Percy Schmeiser lost to Monsanto. (I'm somewhat misrepresenting the details, but the ruling goes something along the lines of "Monsanto owns everything, the grain, the land the grain grew on, the wind that transported the grain, the genes in the grain, the concept of grain, etc, because Monsanto 'created' that particular type of seed (RoundUp Ready canola)." I would call patenting higher life forms a higher priority than the plight of seals.

 

[korbel]

Lol

Oh yeah, things were so much better before industrial civilization.

I would love to go back to being a hunter gatherer. Or walking 4 kilometres to the store to buy fruits (but only in summer, because they don't grow around these parts in winter) or to the local witch doctor. And of course dying within 30 kilometres of where I was born, never having seen Paris or the Peking, because air travel is oh-so-evil-and-polluting.

It's clear to me that industrial civilization has increased human lifespan, even in the poorest countries. The bottom 10% of people in North America live with access to things the richest 1% never ever dreamt of 100 years ago.

And yes, there are things we could do better. There always are. There always will be.

Hello Kepler,

Well...you are from the..."me me me self-gratification it's great now so relax with blinders" school of thought. Yeah civilization is great. We expand, grow, live nicely...well...at the expense of most of the world's people as well as the entire planet. As long as the rest fo the world doesn't get the kind of share we get all will be well. But now the largest national populations of India and China are starting to say me me me and your share is going to get a lot tighter. Not to worry, we will just grow some more. Oooooops...there is now growing general consensus that the climate is changing to the point where the planet will not so long from now even be able to provide food for the population we have currently without the news demands of me me me from almost 3,000,000,000 people in those two population juggernauts. And they are far from the olny "Third World" countries yelling more and more...ME ME ME!!!

What will it take Ziggy. When the popluation can no longer be supported, economic systems start to fail worldwide, and there is a massive die off of hundreds of millions...someone may say at last...SHIT...maybe we need a new view of life on Earth.

Oh you say hahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, it sounds like a lot of doom and gloom. I heard all that before. Geeeeeeez...no one wants to hear such foolishness. Well, it's already happened in the past...yes to humans not just dinosaurs. A recent discovery through genetic research has identified a time when there was a much greater diversity in human genes. But 70,000 years ago the diversity of human genes condensed to where we are all nearly completely the same. The reason: a massive die off that greatly narrowed the human population to the point where there may have been only a few thousand of us left. Hence the much narrower variation in human DNA now.

It's too bad that human self-indulgence, lack of forsight, and dismissal of strong evidence goes on. What the hell, you figure you won't be here when and if a worldwide economic and population collapse happens due to greatly accelerated demand that as gone past vastly degraded resources. Don't count on it. YOU...could be there for the whole show. Yes Kepler. Civilization is improving things for more people...and the population grows...and the demand skyrockets with consumption...and they all want to live like you, taking all they can get. Closing on 9,000,000,000 Kepler. And it's a much more demanding 9,000,000,000. With the flow of wealth from us to them as we buy our products made in Asia, and their buying power for the world's resources accelerates, I hope you all can keep your share.

Good luck,

Korbel

PS

Kepler, I am not really after you. I don't know you. But your post does strike a nerve. Don't take it too pesonally.

 

[Kepler]

Well...you are from the..."me me me self-gratification with blinders" school of thought.

Not at all. I realize the problems that civilization has caused the planet. But I also realize that it has had a fantastic positive impact on the quality of life of just about everyone. How many people would want to permanently live back in the 1st century, or even 19th century, of their country's history?

there is now growing general consensus that the climate is changing to the point where the planet will not so long from now even be able to provide food for the population we have currently

There is consensus that the climate is changing. There is absolutely no consensus that this will result in the inability to grow enough food. In fact, last time I heard, food production might increase due to warming as more land becomes productive. The Earth currently produces much more than enough food to feed everyone. People are starving for political reasons, not environmental ones.

With the flow of wealth from us to them as we buy our products made in Asia,

Actually, wealth is flowing from them to us. China alone has invested over a trillion dollars in the US economy (check out their central bank's balance sheet).

 

[korbel]

Not at all. I realize the problems that civilization has caused the planet. But I also realize that it has had a fantastic positive impact on the quality of life of just about everyone. How many people would want to permanently live back in the 1st century, or even 19th century, of their country's history?

There is consensus that the climate is changing. There is absolutely no consensus that this will result in the inability to grow enough food. In fact, last time I heard, food production might increase due to warming as more land becomes productive. The Earth currently produces much more than enough food to feed everyone. People are starving for political reasons, not environmental ones.

Actually, wealth is flowing from them to us. China alone has invested over a trillion dollars in the US economy (check out their central bank's balance sheet).

Hello Kepler,

Yes, food increases have been noted as a result of initial warming. But when that warming has increased to the point where ice caps melt enough, ocean currents shut down, and climates worldwide alter...we will go from a shorter-lived bonus period, with the increased populations that encourages, to a climatic system we won't recognize and one that will then greatly damage food production and living conditons that can no longer serve even the "HAVES" in this world. Yeah no one can prove that conclusion to a precise fact...yet. But the conditions I mentioned for it run in a very predictable process that is far from unprecedented.

Unfortunately, we humans still live less than a hundred years and that fact allows us to dismiss future projections too easily. The real question is do we care about the future of humanity, or do we indugle in our lives as our currently fortunate position MAY permit???

Remember much of the world lives much closer to the edge at any time when we seem to feel all is well. Resources still flow mostly to the same consumers, but some countries are already choosing to sell their goods to different buyers, like China and India, than in the past. We may still have most of the wealth to keep goods flowing to us, but the shift is on and the huge potential markets in the "Third World" are growing more and more able to make demands on all resources while the power of consumers like the American middle class declines, Asian ones grow at increasing rates. There simply aren't enough resources for eveyone to bask at the top standard of living the way the system currently works. How long will those who live that well be us even if climate change wasn't a real threat???

While it lasts,

Korbel

 

[Agrippa]

I've skimmed through Paul Hawken's The Ecology of Commerce. And can't seem to find anything that summarizes the arguments concisely...

I will leave you, though, with this quote from pp.13-14 as food for thought!

Author Ivan Illich has pointed out that the average American is involved with his or her automobile -- working in order to buy it, actually driving it, getting it repaired, and so on -- for sixteen hundred hours a year. This means when all car mileage in a given year is divided up by the time spent supporting the car, the average car owner is traveling at an average speed of five miles per hour. To attain the speed of a bicycle, we are devastating our cities, air, lungs, and lives, while bringing on the threat of global warming.

It is implicit that we are not talking of eliminating ALL vehicules. Of course we need trucks for transporting things from one place to another, but the vast majority of individuals do not need a car in their daily routines. Take public transit. Walk to the local grocery store and (you know you're going to need something to carry your groceries) bring a bag with you, no need to taking more of those plastic ones that cut into your hands.

 

[Agrippa]

Yes, food increases have been noted as a result of initial warming. But when that warming has increased to the point where ice caps melt enough, ocean currents shut down, and climates worldwide alter...we will go from a shorter-lived bonus period, with the increased populations that encourages, to a climatic system we won't recognize and one that will then greatly damage food production and living conditons that can no longer serve even the "HAVES" in this world. [...]

True Korbel, but I would also add that a change in temperature also enocurages pests to move further north. Maybe not as far north as Canada, but at least further into the US. This will afflict humans and plants. Tropical diseases that are unheard of in North America will make their appearance.

In other places that cannot really withstand more heat, we will see their fields turning dry which will eventually lead to desertification. Lakes will dry up. Fresh water will be on the decline, but indeed ocean levels will rise.

It won't be (or is it already not?) be pretty!

 

[Agrippa]

It's not easy killing an animal.

Well said t76. I'm not sure very many people have the heart to deal with all the trouble that it is to slaughter one's own meal. At very least, one should seen it happen at least once. I've seen a chickens and a pig slaughtered in person, but not a cow or some other larger animal. It's a humbling experience. Eating it afterwards I was much more aware of the implications of what I was consuming and how much work was required. I'm reminded once in a while when I see footage on TV of hog farms or cattle ranches... but usually the memory is filed away.

I think the fact of the matter is that we will see less and less imported food and have to buy locally if the price of gas keeps rising (I say if, because on the short term it may not as govt's scramble to keep things 'stable', but in the long term it has to - demand rises, supple decreases.) I've mentioned this elsewhere, but the inflation awaiting us with the price of energy rising will be astronomical. Think of the vast distances some of the foodstuff we consume has to travel. In fact anything we buy. The price of gas is factored into everything; it rises, what we buy rises.

 

[Agrippa]

Korbel, Kepler, I'll draw your attention to the following article: Draft of climate report maps out 'highway to extinction' from CNN.com

An excerpt (emphasis mine):

[...] While humanity will survive, hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people may not, according to the chart -- if the worst scenarios happen.

The report says global warming has already degraded conditions for many species, coastal areas and poor people. With a more than 90 percent level of confidence, the scientists in the draft report say man-made global warming "over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems."

But as the world's average temperature warms from 1990 levels, the projections get more dire. Add 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit -- 1 degree Celsius is the calculation scientists use -- and between 400 million and 1.7 billion extra people can't get enough water, some infectious diseases and allergenic pollens rise, and some amphibians go extinct.

But the world's food supply, especially in northern areas, could increase. That's the likely outcome around 2020, according to the draft.

Add another 1.8 degrees and as many as 2 billion people could be without water and about 20 percent to 30 percent of the world's species near extinction. Also, more people start dying because of malnutrition, disease, heat waves, floods and droughts -- all caused by global warming. That would happen around 2050, depending on the level of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels.

At the extreme end of the projections, a 7- to 9-degree average temperature increase, the chart predicts: "Up to one-fifth of the world population affected by increased flood events" ... "1.1 to 3.2 billion people with increased water scarcity" ..."major extinctions around the globe."

Despite that dire outlook, several scientists involved in the process say they are optimistic that such a drastic temperature rise won't happen because people will reduce carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.

"The worst stuff is not going to happen because we can't be that stupid," said Harvard University oceanographer James McCarthy, who was a top author of the 2001 version of this report. "Not that I think the projections aren't that good, but because we can't be that stupid."

I hope Mr McCarthy is correct... but I remind you of a quote by George Carlin (which you might have also seen as Techman's sig): "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

 

[korbel]

Doh!!!

Hello Agrippa,

How did I forget the spread of diseases. Yes, I have heard and read many reports of diseases, like encephalitis from mosquitos moving northward, will
be more extreme. I have also heard a lot about the "Climate Report", so there are no surprises there. In fact much of what I was saying before was based on the report. Fun isn't it. All hail the profit motive, human self-indulgence, and the..."it will never happent to me" spirit. Well, the party IS coming. It's just a matter of when, how bad it will be, and who get's it worse.

Let's party,

Korbel

 

[JustBob]

Despite that dire outlook, several scientists involved in the process say they are optimistic that such a drastic temperature rise won't happen because people will reduce carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.

And "several scientists" will also claim that there is little to no proof of a direct correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. And you can find hundreds of scientific reports that contradict the claims of the "Climate Panel" report. I'l repeat this again, there is no absolute truth when it comes to global warming research. There are far too many parameters and unknowns for that. The problem here is that global warming is now treated like a religion, and that the skeptics point of you is rarely heard.

Of course that doesn't mean we shoudn't do anything about chemical pollution and the environment. For example, the % of cancers due to chemical pollution has risen alarmingly in the past 25 years. Now there's something tangible.

 

[pookiebear]

Korbel, Kepler, I'll draw your attention to the following article: Draft of climate report maps out 'highway to extinction' from CNN.com

An excerpt (emphasis mine):

I hope Mr McCarthy is correct... but I remind you of a quote by George Carlin (which you might have also seen as Techman's sig): "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

I like this quote.
Think of Global warming as Mother Nature's way of balancing things in the world. We used to have disaster of epic proportion floods, hurricans, volcanoes, etc.. and yet back when people didnt think anything of it. We have disease that wiped out towns and cities with one fell swope. Along comes man and he thinks he's better than nature and that he can prolong life and build subdivisions where nature was not meant for one to live. He can wipe out other species and push them out through hunting, fishing, and development not caring what becomes of them. Through our own selfishness and stupidity we have caused all this. Maybe it's Mother Nature way of weaving out the weak one amongs us and kill of all the stupid people of the world. Its mother nature given us the middle finger.

 

[korbel]

But it happens.

And "several scientists" will also claim that there is little to no proof of a direct correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. And you can find hundreds of scientific reports that contradict the claims of the "Climate Panel" report. I'l repeat this again, there is no absolute truth when it comes to global warming research. There are far too many parameters and unknowns for that. The problem here is that global warming is now treated like a religion, and that the skeptics point of you is rarely heard.

Of course that doesn't mean we shoudn't do anything about chemical pollution and the environment. For example, the % of cancers due to chemical pollution has risen alarmingly in the past 25 years. Now there's something tangible.

Hello Justbob,

In so many events in history we can look back and say..."what were the chances". Frankly, I don't believe in "absolute proof" when it comes to predictions for anything. Anything headed in one direction can go in another because of some unexpected or unaccounted for factors. As for dramatic climate changes, ever heard of the Little Ice Age in Europe approximately 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850. The Earth does enough on it's own. But what would happen with 150-200 years of fossil fuel use? I think we are starting to see more and more persistent results of that. As in normal cycles not greatly impacted by mankind there will be varying mini-cycles. Then there are drastic extended periods one way or another. How will mankind's added impact push the next cycle/ Even if it is naturally based, have we begun to tilt the next one even further than it might have been?

I think it is unfair to call concerns or expectations of climatic disaster a religion. Maybe faith in science generally has become like that, but otherwise your classification may go to far. As for "scientific reports that contradict the claims of the Climate Panel report", there are genuine contradictory reports, then there are many politically biased reports that have been generated to serve corporate interests. The profit motive is a very active author. We need to separate Sophism from real science...genuine scientific disagreement from pure self-serving bullshit! I bet the people at Pompeii wish they had known the difference.

Be careful,

Korbel

 

[JustBob]

Hello Justbob,

In so many events in history we can look back and say..."what were the chances". Frankly, I don't believe in "absolute proof" when it comes to predictions for anything. Anything headed in one direction can go in another because of some unexpected or unaccounted for factors. As for dramatic climate changes, ever heard of the Little Ice Age in Europe approximately 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850. The Earth does enough on it's own. But what would happen with 150-200 years of fossil fuel use? I think we are starting to see more and more persistent results of that. As in normal cycles not greatly impacted by mankind there will be varying mini-cycles. Then there are drastic extended periods one way or another. How will mankind's added impact push the next cycle/ Even if it is naturally based, have we begun to tilt the next one even further than it might have been?

I don't disagree with that. In fact, I favor the "better be safe than sorry" approach. However, I always try to look at both sides of an issue and saddly, one side is grossly misrepresented.

I think it is unfair to call concerns or expectations of climatic disaster a religion. Maybe faith in science generally has become like that, but otherwise your classification may go to far.

I disagree. The global warming issue has indeed become a religion. It is THE hot topic issue and "faith" (more often than not "blind faith") is what drives people to believe the "alarmist" point of view which, again, is the only one being represented. Why do you believe "An Inconvenient Truth" won the Oscar for best documentary? Why do you think that people still support Kyoto (even if it's well... a terribly silly thing). It's because the issue and the point of view presented are popular. Which has little to nothing to do with the quality and/or exactitude of the research presented, or with the fact that people are informed. It's sheep mentality at it's best (or worse ).

As for "scientific reports that contradict the claims of the Climate Panel report", there are genuine contradictory reports, then there are many politically biased reports that have been generated to serve corporate interests. The profit motive is a very active author.

Again that's one side of the story. The other side is that global warming research has become politicized and has become "big business" on both sides of the issue. And since the "alarmist" point of view is the popular one, there are a lot of incentives for scientists to validate that point of view if they want to continue receiving funding. The "bad science" exists on both sides of the issue, and sorting thru it, because of all the different sciences involved and the multitude of unknown parameters is almost an impossible task.

We need to separate Sophism from real science...genuine scientific disagreement from pure self-serving bullshit! I bet the people at Pompeii wish they had known the difference.

Fine, I don't have a problem with that. But there are two problems. One, in order to have an informed opinion, one needs to be exposed to both sides of an issue. This is not happening currently. Two, this is extremely complex stuff and most people don't understand it anyway. The result is that people basically rely on "faith" and accept the popular opinion.

Be careful,

Korbel

The fact is, I don't tend to believe the "alarmists" over the "skeptics" or vice-versa. For the later point of view, I must thank a member of another forum, who definitely belongs to the "skeptics" side, but who has done a wonderful job of maintaining a thread (Part 1 is over 150 pages long, and Part 2 is well on it's way) which offers the skeptic point of view, not only by posting tons of articles but also by adding intelligent comments and taking the time to rationally, present, debate and defend his point of view.

I would agree however that it is better to err on the side of caution, and that sometimes nothing less than "alarmism" is required to get people to react. I just wish that this issue wasn't as one sided as it is currently in the media.

So, be careful as well.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

I would have been confident that things would have improved. Improved enough? No. But it would have been a step in the right direction.

The condition of our planet is worsening at a pace that is exceeding the irresolute solutions set forth by our political leaders. Taking steps in the right directions is not enough.

It's not about what the kid would hate most but what would be best for him.

Who decides what's best for rivers? Man? Beavers? The rivers themselves? What do rivers want? The same way who decides what's best for the Iraqi people? And who decides what's best for the kid who got bullied in the schoolyard?

In the example you gave, yes, the best thing is to become the bully himself. But it an issue concerning an individual can not be compared with an issue concerning a nation, a continent, the entire world.

No? Instead of violence, let's speak of a broader category of actions which can or not include violence: "disobedience". The kid disobeyed the bullie's rules. Now, extrapolating the concept, a certain Rosa Parks, in December of 1955, triggered a 382 days fight which resulted in a decision by the Supreme Court to declare segregation unconstitutional in public transportation. How? By disobeying bus driver Blake who ordered her to give up her seat so the white passenger could sit.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

The only thing that concerns me in this case is that this is not democracy (As stated in this post's original, native thread) but rather terrorism? Isn't this what religious-right abortion clinic bombers say: "We know where you live"?

Great story nonetheless. I agree that democracy does not happen by casting a vote once every few years, but would it not lead to pandemonium if everyone said "Je règle ça à ma manière"?

Is the destruction of our environment a choice we, the people, made democratically? If we check the records, the answer is a clear "NO". Countless number of polls show that people put the environmental issue ahead of economy. Our political leaders are aware of this and so are the industrialists who are the main reason why our planet has deteriorated, perhaps to a point of no return. So the need to implement environmental policies has become a must though this rises a vital question: is it enough? Unless one has a vest interest in ignorance, the question is as easy as 1 + 1: "NO". Not only are the policies inadequate and insufficient, these are also hypocritical and reveal a conflict of interest: political power - mainly the non-interventionist type - and corporate power feed off each other, they work hand in hand, because money, too often, has the last say in human affairs. Therefore the priority of the politico-industrialist partnership - economy - is in contraction with the priority called out by the electors: environment.

Those who understand the issue this way and are active in the debate often act as government/corporate watchdogs and, trust me, they're all pacifists at the start and they're all speaking of the importance of educating the masses and directing representations to our governments. But this is a long and frustrating path and while the state of the planet is worsening by the day, some activists - a growing minority - are becoming aware of the urgency of the situation and are contemplating more radical forms of action, including what we know as "eco-terrorism".

I have an opinion on what the medias, governments and the people in general call "terrorism": the daily destruction of our environment through, for instance, the spraying of forests with defoliants or the dumping of chemical residues onto rivers (the same way the state-sponsored killings and deportations of Palestinians by Israeli armed forces) is never called "terrorism". An entire lexicon exists to explain/justify the extinction of migrating salmons but the word "terrorism" is nowhere to be found. On the other hand, the wrath of 400 Mexican farmers armed with machetes seizing control of the water pumping station that supplies the nearby tourists at Acapulco with close to 70% of the water of the region (water the farmers are desperately lacking of for their cultures), IS "terrorism". Always, the double standards.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Please don't mix up the cute-big-round-eye-very-easily-'sellable'-to-the-masses-baby-seal issue with more pressing issues.

Seriously, people give a damn about baby seals because they're cute. Not too many people gave a damn when Percy Schmeiser lost to Monsanto.

So true. Part of manufacturing consent, is to give in to the opponent's demands but only in a way to keep him happy while you're realizing your own agenda. The most efficient form of propaganda is the one that allows dissent yet knows how to keep it confined in the margins - where it can be seen at all time.

And when the bear is growling, give him quick something to chew on so he goes back to sleep.