The Anti-Civilization Thread

[eastender]

Our poorest brethren.........

Definitely not at the same rate where the poorest segments of populations live. Example: child mortality rates in rural sub-Saharan Africa over the last 50 years period has, indeed, declined albeit nowhere close to where it could be. Immunizations have contributed to the decrease but increased cases of malaria rebound based on seasonal variations were noted. Another example: AIDS. For the longest time, parts of the world most afflicted by AIDS happen to be parts of the world that have least access to antiretroviral tritherapy. After the longest battle led by various groups of activists, a court decision was rendered in favour of producers of generic medecines to make and distribute the compounds of tritherapy where it's mostly needed. Note that it took a fight to eventually reach this happy conclusion: while GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim were doing all they could to delay this decision, tens of thousands of Africans were dying every month of the consequences of AIDS. These deaths would have been easely avoided in the West.

So you have figured out that we do not treat our poorest brethren kindly.People in Appalachia have known this for generations.

You have made my point that everyone benefits.There is a option now to compel or facilitate help via legal challenges.This was not an option in Appalachia after the American Civil War.

It took a longer time to distribute penicillin to the poor and needy when penicillin was first discovered and developed.So a legal mechinism is now in place and jurisprudence will further speed the process should there be a need in the future.

 

[JustBob]

If I interpret the above jest as the expression of a wish, then there are reasons to hope because there's nobody more prompt than a detractor of the environmentalist movement to discredit its relevance by constantly pointing to its excess. From past experience - think of feminism for instance - when detractors would resort to such lower form of criticism, the movement would gain ground.

It is certainly not a wish.

Now, if I interpret the above irony as a reprimand then, while the cowards, the expedients and the vanitous are questioning all together the safeness, the correctness and the popularity of their actions, the conscious will abnegate himself with the feeling he did the right thing.

The "conscious" of what?. Hey, I stated it previously, I worked for an environmental group. And the type of "consciousness" I saw was caused by blind adherence to an extremist point of view. So do I question the safeness and popularity of extremist actions? Safeness to a degree, popularity absolutely not. Correctness however, certainly. And it has nothing to do with vanity or cowardice. Extremist points of view are rarely if ever based on "consciousness" grounded in reason and logic.

Eco-terrorism is not a subcategory of the environmentalist movement with its own subset of action. It's basically a mechanism of self-defense when one realizes that it'll soon be too late. Suppose it was discovered today that the greenhouse effect has been grossly underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now instead of - say - 100, as it was previously estimated, and that the attitude of the political leaders is one of denial, do you think the people will wait 10 years to see? Suppose you've got a gun pointed at you and the trigger is being pulled, what would be the correct action according to you? Accept your impending death? Try to reason the killer? Or pull a Jack Bauer on him? What?

"Why wait until the evildoers attack us?". Do you realize that George W. Bush and his croonies used the same absurd logic to rationalize the war in Iraq?

"What if it will soon be too late...". "What if we grossly underestimated..."

I agree that we should err on the side of caution but unless you have evidence to prove that the "threat is imminent" (again, how ironic...) I absolutely cannot support unlawful actions undertaken by people blinded by their "mission".

 

[JustBob]

It's funny that people who keep whining and ranting against capitalism, corporations and free market economies (which do have their share of flaws)never have a viable alternative model to propose.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

It's funny that people who keep whining and ranting against capitalism, corporations and free market economies (which do have their share of flaws)never have a viable alternative model to propose.

Is that so? What channel were you tuned into while the Reagan administration, in defiance of US Congress on military activity in Central America, backed and sponsored death squads to bring down any alternative form of economy to its knees, all this and more atrocities perpetrated, there and elsewhere, in the name of freedom err. "free trade"?

 

[Agrippa]

Justbob,

It's not a matter of entirely eliminating these things. It's a matter of reforming them.

Holding corporations accountable to their actions. Yes they are defined as a person, but you cannot send the corporation to jail. Or fine them enough so that it actually hurts. Not allowing corporations to offload 'externalities' on the rest of society. Sometimes it costs less money to break the law and pay the fine rather than spend the money on fixing the problem in the frist place.

Corporation's charters can be revoked, but they rarely are. When they are, it's not because the corporation broke the law, but because it hasn't payed it's taxes! The govt's are complicit in all this...

 

[eastender]

Ice Age,Dinosaurs,etc.

eastender,

nonsense -- dying (of what?) peasant in Timor -- people in Canada don't have access to that kind of treatment, (or at least have to wait in line for them).

Besides I think you're missing the point of the thread. Of course the advancements you've pointed out are positive. It's industry, commercialization, producing demand/desire/need where there is none, multiplying it by the 6 billion people that walk the earth and projecting where it leads us. If everyone insists on eating meat, driving a car, living in a McMansion on their parcel of land, watering the lawn and then spraying it with chemicals (that aren't even supposed to exist, who knows if they will be absorbed by (any) organisms, how it will be broken down, and how it may affect them) so that it's green... etc, can you imagine what would be left?

What does it matter if the margin is thin or not. Is it not intrinsically idiotic, narrow-minded, short-sighted for us to continue living the way we do? It's just a matter of having a smaller foot print... the number of us keeps growing, but the area available to us is not.

Maybe there are still whales left because people aren't allowed to fish/hunt for whales like they used to. You also speak of oil as if it were a renewable resource...

Thank you for making my point - treatment is now available.The issue is delivering it in a timely fashion to all that need it.

Mankind survived the "ICE AGE" - not caused by any actions or inactions of mankind with a skill set focused on trying to master fire,poking living things with a pointed stick and throwing rocks at each other.Obviously simpler times did not protect mankind from an ecological disaster.

Granted the planet lost the DINOSAURS and a few other species along the way(not the fault of mankind) - survival of the fittest/smartest scenario (google Charles Darwin) to arrive at our present point.

Most species are fairly resilient - see cockroaches and rats when it comes to extermination efforts,throw in a few other scavengers and the point is fairly clear.Conversely species have disappeared from the planet without any direct or indirect impact from mankind(see dinosaurs).

Kindly do not attribute statements to me that I never made.I NEVER said that
oil was a renewable resource.

At the time America was discovered crude oil was viewed as a nuisance.No one had figured out how to refine it or what to do with it.100 years ago television was somewhat theoretical and the internet was fantasy/science fiction.Coal was the fuel of choice,electrical or oil heating were down the road.I simply have faith that the exponential growth in knowledge will find solutions - solar energy,energy from garbage,electric energy amongst others are all viable options that will move us forward.

 

[JustBob]

Is that so? What channel were you tuned into while the Reagan administration, in defiance of US Congress on military activity in Central America, backed and sponsored death squads to bring down any alternative form of economy to its knees, all this and more atrocities perpetrated, there and elsewhere, in the name of freedom err. "free trade"?

What does this have to do with the point I made? All you're doing is ranting again... What do you propose we replace free market economies with? Both communism and (true) socialism have proven to be total failures when applied on a large scale. So what else is there?

 

[JustBob]

Justbob,

It's not a matter of entirely eliminating these things. It's a matter of reforming them.

Holding corporations accountable to their actions. Yes they are defined as a person, but you cannot send the corporation to jail. Or fine them enough so that it actually hurts. Not allowing corporations to offload 'externalities' on the rest of society. Sometimes it costs less money to break the law and pay the fine rather than spend the money on fixing the problem in the frist place.

Corporation's charters can be revoked, but they rarely are. When they are, it's not because the corporation broke the law, but because it hasn't payed it's taxes! The govt's are complicit in all this...

I totally agree with you. Like I said, there are a number of flaws that need to be addressed. We should always aim to improve the system. Perfect systems don't exist.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Extremist points of view are rarely if ever based on "consciousness" grounded in reason and logic.

It's not, as I pointed out earlier, it's based on a sense of urgency, urgency for radical action when other forms of action either don't work anymore or dispose of not enough time to be implemented.

"Why wait until the evildoers attack us?". Do you realize that George W. Bush and his croonies used the same absurd logic to rationalize the war in Iraq?

You're imputing a logic that is not mine and that I can't identify as the logic of most eco-radicalists I know or heard of, though I clearly view the kind you are pointing to, for having met some: they're just plain crazy! But again, if you'd cease to refer to the nutcases populating Greenpeace, it would be easier to understand that radical action comes from a readiness for responsibility and not, like the neo-cons, to carry out an agenda they had in their back pocket, waiting for the first excuse.

I agree that we should err on the side of caution but unless you have evidence to prove that the "threat is imminent" (again, how ironic...) I absolutely cannot support unlawful actions undertaken by people blinded by their "mission".

How much evidence do you need? Undeniable, science-stamped evidence? If that's the case we might as well all be smoking because, hey, the evidence is not quite all there...

So you wouldn't warrant unlawful action unless it can be proved with absolute certainty that the threat is imminent. That's noble of you but is it lawful, for instance, to expropriate land and rivers to built dams which are destroying cultures and species? Of course it is! Is it moral? Is it what the rivers would want? You tell me.

 

[Agrippa]

Thank you for making my point - treatment is now available.The issue is delivering it in a timely fashion to all that need it.

I don't think you understood the point I was making. Yes these things are now available and save lives. No one deplores that. The rest of my point was that this is not what is causing our troubles, nor is it what is being discussed in this thread.

Mankind survived the "ICE AGE" - not caused by any actions or inactions of mankind with a skill set focused on trying to master fire,poking living things with a pointed stick and throwing rocks at each other.Obviously simpler times did not protect mankind from an ecological disaster.

What are you arguing? No one said simpler times would solve our problems. Their skill set consisted mostly of survival! Period. And they did survive. Nor did they cause the ecological disaster they were facing. The fact of the matter is that there is an impending ecological disaster looming ahead of us, if you/I/we care to survive, we'll do something about it.

Granted the planet lost the DINOSAURS and a few other species along the way(not the fault of mankind) - survival of the fittest/smartest scenario (google Charles Darwin) to arrive at our present point.

Heh, yeah, thanks for the lesson, I was actually a devout believer of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, but now that you've introduced me to this Darwin guy, I'm sold...

Most species are fairly resilient - see cockroaches and rats when it comes to extermination efforts,throw in a few other scavengers and the point is fairly clear.Conversely species have disappeared from the planet without any direct or indirect impact from mankind(see dinosaurs).

Yes that's a point Ziggy made earlier in the thread. Yes, species disappear for a variety of reasons. In some cases, we're very responsible for their disappearance. Does it not make sense to stop?! Are you arguing that it doesn't matter because species disappear anyhow?

You also speak of oil as if it were a renewable resource...

Kindly do not attribute statements to me that I never made.I NEVER said that oil was a renewable resource.

I didn't claim you said it... You reasoning went: Oil was thought to be scarce - now there's plenty of it - we're doing fine. Not the most solid reasoning...

I simply have faith that the exponential growth in knowledge will find solutions - solar energy,energy from garbage,electric energy amongst others are all viable options that will move us forward.

Maybe, maybe not, buy why not take charge and do something about the situation yourself rather than to just wait for someone else to figure it out for you?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

What does this have to do with the point I made? All you're doing is ranting again... What do you propose we replace free market economies with? Both communism and (true) socialism have proven to be total failures when applied on a large scale. So what else is there?

The point is clear, you just fail to understand it. The point I made is capitalism is just as much a failure since it must resort to violence to keep its mechanics up and running. The idea of market discipline generating wealth - as if wealth can be generated ad vitam aeternam - for everyone is simply utopic. I mean, the blinders must be quite opaque for one to ignore the inequities, the sufferings and the privations produced by capitalism.

As for (true) socialism being a failure, explain how, for instance, Sandinist socialism could have proved itself to be a viable way of life under the conditions imposed by the Reagan administration, i.e. the constant state of terror the population of Nicaragua had to suffer while the US-backed Contras were perpetrating their atrocities?

 

[eastender]

Ice Age / Global Warming Pendulum

I don't think you understood the point I was making. Yes these things are now available and save lives. No one deplores that. The rest of my point was that this is not what is causing our troubles, nor is it what is being discussed in this thread.

What are you arguing? No one said simpler times would solve our problems. Their skill set consisted mostly of survival! Period. And they did survive. Nor did they cause the ecological disaster they were facing. The fact of the matter is that there is an impending ecological disaster looming ahead of us, if you/I/we care to survive, we'll do something about it.Heh, yeah, thanks for the lesson, I was actually a devout believer of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, but now that you've introduced me to this Darwin guy, I'm sold...
Yes that's a point Ziggy made earlier in the thread. Yes, species disappear for a variety of reasons. In some cases, we're very responsible for their disappearance. Does it not make sense to stop?! Are you arguing that it doesn't matter because species disappear anyhow?

I didn't claim you said it... You reasoning went: Oil was thought to be scarce - now there's plenty of it - we're doing fine. Not the most solid reasoning...
Maybe, maybe not, buy why not take charge and do something about the situation yourself rather than to just wait for someone else to figure it out for you?

As the pendulum of evolution swingsbetween the ICE AGE and GLOBAL WARMING there will be bumps in the road.

Leprosy,smallpox and various plagues were supposed to be the end of civilization during an era when medical technology was ultra primitive.Guess what,we survived.I just have faith based on historical evidence that we will find solutions to present medical problems.

We more than survived - we evolved to our present state where we can actually do something as opposed to being oblivious

That was not my point or reasoning - simply my point was that models that claimed to show that oil was going to be scarce have not withstood the test of time or evidence.

Not sure what you mean by taking charge.You are making assumptions about my background,qualifications and activities that have no bases in fact.

 

[eastender]

Violence and Isms

The point is clear, you just fail to understand it. The point I made is capitalism is just as much a failure since it must resort to violence to keep its mechanics up and running. The idea of market discipline generating wealth - as if wealth can be generated ad vitam aeternam - for everyone is simply utopic. I mean, the blinders must be quite opaque for one to ignore the inequities, the sufferings and the privations produced by capitalism.

As for (true) socialism being a failure, explain how, for instance, Sandinist socialism could have proved itself to be a viable way of life under the conditions imposed by the Reagan administration, i.e. the constant state of terror the population of Nicaragua had to suffer while the US-backed Contras were perpetrating their atrocities?

Every "Ism" beyond the obscure resorts to violence to keep it going.Capitalism is a rather new phenomena and it replaced tyrants,despots and various systems that made modern day fascists look benevolent.

 

[JustBob]

How much evidence do you need? Undeniable, science-stamped evidence? If that's the case we might as well all be smoking because, hey, the evidence is not quite all there...

What evidence do your eco-terrorists use when they deem it useful to spray paint SUV's? That CO2 emissions are largely responsible for global warming? There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. What evidence is there that, if all cars stopped running now, that this would have any impact whatsoever on global warmimg say 100 years from now? Can you answer that question?

I'm going to say this again, it's better to err on the side of caution. There is positive action being taken (see prior example in BC) and environmental consciousness is seeping in both at the individual level and at the governmental level. We need to continue to educate the younger generations and to encourage/promote environmental awareness. Obviously, and I still don't know on what grounds aside from baseless assumptions "that what if it's too late", you believe that we aren't doing enough and what you perceive as inaction should be countered with drastic measures such as eco-terrorism. I disagree. I believe this would only hurt people opinion and turn the tide against environmentalists. Why do you believe that today, people have such a low opinion of Muslims?

So you wouldn't warrant unlawful action unless it can be proved with absolute certainty that the threat is imminent. That's noble of you but is it lawful, for instance, to expropriate land and rivers to built dams which are destroying cultures and species? Of course it is! Is it moral? Is it what the rivers would want? You tell me.

What's immoral is to destroy 13 villages in China to build the Three Gorges Dam while doing little to no environmental impact studies. Easy enough when all the land belongs to the state and they've got no environmental laws. Much harder when you have laws which support land and property rights and do have some concern for the environment. But that's evil capitalism

 

[z/m(Ret)]

That was not my point or reasoning - simply my point was that models that claimed to show that oil was going to be scarce have not withstood the test of time or evidence.

How so? explain. Last time I checked, all the oil peak models called for the peak reaching 35,000,000 barrels/day somewhere in 2007-2008 (hey! we're there!). How is it possible then that the theory did not withstand the test of time? Come on!

 

[JustBob]

The point is clear, you just fail to understand it. The point I made is capitalism is just as much a failure since it must resort to violence to keep its mechanics up and running. The idea of market discipline generating wealth - as if wealth can be generated ad vitam aeternam - for everyone is simply utopic. I mean, the blinders must be quite opaque for one to ignore the inequities, the sufferings and the privations produced by capitalism.

Nope, I'm fully aware of the flaws. And I'd much rather live in a social democracy than in a country like the US where capitalism is much less "restrained". Again, do you have an alternative to propose?

As for (true) socialism being a failure, explain how, for instance, Sandinist socialism could have proved itself to be a viable way of life under the conditions imposed by the Reagan administration, i.e. the constant state of terror the population of Nicaragua had to suffer while the US-backed Contras were perpetrating their atrocities?

"Could have proved itself" doesn't quite cut it. Show me an example where communism and/or socialism have succeded on a large scale without totally collapsing at some point. Let me help you, there are none. Call me crazy, but I'd rather try to work at improving the system in place than spending my time raving, ranting and dreaming about some utopian system that can't even be defined.

 

[JustBob]

How so? explain. Last time I checked, all the oil peak models called for the peak reaching 35,000,000 barrels/day somewhere in 2007-2008 (hey! we're there!). How is it possible then that the theory did not withstand the test of time? Come on!

eastender is correct. There have been plenty of models in the past that had predicted that oil would run out by year XXXX. All of them were wrong.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Every "Ism" beyond the obscure resorts to violence to keep it going.Capitalism is a rather new phenomena and it replaced tyrants,despots and various systems that made modern day fascists look benevolent.

Oh but that's ok because, apparently, there would be no viable alternative to capitalism, a good, equitable system with just a few bumps on the road.

 

[eastender]

1970's Energy Crisis

How so? explain. Last time I checked, all the oil peak models called for the peak reaching 35,000,000 barrels/day somewhere in 2007-2008 (hey! we're there!). How is it possible then that the theory did not withstand the test of time? Come on!

During the 1970's energy crisis there were models that claimed to show that unless we changed our consumption habits we risked running out within 10 years to a generation.Guess what - we are still driving gas guzzlers like hummers and the like and your quote is just another reason why we should be vary of alarmist models.

 

[Agrippa]

eastender,

Please edit your post. There are things that you are saying in my quote bubble.

I am inferring things from what you wrote. You stated nowhere that you have taken actions. You did state though that you had faith in others who would do something about 'it.'

Taking charge is anything you want it to be. Protesting in the streets, being an aware consumer, acting upon the urgency of the situation. All this to say, being pro-active about the situation.

I'd recommend Paul Robert's The End of Oil for a good overview of the history of oil and it's future from geological, economical and political perspectives. The book argues convincingly that peak oil is nigh, if not passed.