The Anti-Civilization Thread

[eastender]

Self-evident

How can one be doing any harm by cutting down on pollution (of all sorts) being emitted?

Once again, is it not self-evident that it's a good idea to cut down on the crap we're putting out there?

The topic at hand was activism or doing something not pollution.

Go ahead cut down on pollution just make sure that as a result a greater harm is not committed.

 

[Agrippa]

Not when "cutting down on the crap" requires massive investment, which may save lives, while investing our limited resources in (eg) health care, will save lives.

Think big picture! How does that aphorism go? Prevention not cure. Why so much cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc? A change in choices, lifestyle, what we eat... is the ultimate way to save lives.

 

[Agrippa]

The topic at hand was activism or doing something not pollution.

What do you think the activism is for? I'll answer for you: In order to put bigger forces in motion to reduce/minimize pollution.

Go ahead cut down on pollution just make sure that as a result a greater harm is not committed.

How is this conceivable? How is it going to harm anyone, if one were to choose forego their car for public transportation say.

 

[Kepler]

Think big picture! How does that aphorism go? Prevention not cure. Why so much cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc? A change in choices, lifestyle, what we eat... is the ultimate way to save lives.

I am thinking "big picture". And when you think big picture, you can't spend your resources on every single cause that might cause an unknown amount of suffering. You have to balance probabilities. And even though science proved the Earth is warming, it has far from proved what the cost will be.

Maybe we should spend more money on an Asteroid deflection program? Or on more fish farms so that we don't deplete our oceans? Or on the reduction of cancer causing chemicals? Or...Or...Or....

 

[eastender]

Activism

What do you think the activism is for? I'll answer for you: In order to put bigger forces in motion to reduce/minimize pollution.How is this conceivable? How is it going to harm anyone, if one were to choose forego their car for public transportation say.

Please don't answer for me or others.

Activism is about rational involvement for a cause.Making the best choice at each point in the journey.

If it is not going to harm anyone then feel free to forego driving a car in favour of public transportation.Others may not see harm in doing so or may calculate the benefits to be insufficient and they will continue to drive a car.

People with illnesses or conditions may find the diesel fumes from public transportation damaging to their health.Doctors may feel that the time saved by taking a car to get to an emergency operation will save a life that may be lost if they had to wait for a bus.

 

[Agrippa]

eastender, your responses are silly; you are too rational for your own good.

I am not answering for anyone, I am stating the obvious. Activism is not about being rational, that's what politics is about - weigh the possibilities/consequences and make a decision based on the facts available. Activism is, as Ziggy pointed out, when things get out of hand and require urgent action.

What kind of an idiot would say "I'm having a heart attack, let me take the bus to the hospital, even though I know the bus runs every 20 minutes"?
No, you pick up the phone and call an ambulance (or drive yourself if you can). No one said eliminate all vehicles off the road. Your reasoning is either disingenuous or incompetent. A bus can hold more than 80 people. That's a lot less cars on the street. If they find the fumes from a bus damaging to their health what do they think of the fumes from cars? Perfume? Sure there is a quality to diesel fumes, but the sheer quantity of cars trumps that.

 

[eastender]

Oh well...............

What kind of an idiot would say "I'm having a heart attack, let me take the bus to the hospital, even though I know the bus runs every 20 minutes"?
No, you pick up the phone and call an ambulance (or drive yourself if you can). No one said eliminate all vehicles off the road. Your reasoning is either disingenuous or incompetent. A bus can hold more than 80 people. That's a lot less cars on the street. If they find the fumes from a bus damaging to their health what do they think of the fumes from cars? Perfume? Sure there is a quality to diesel fumes, but the sheer quantity of cars trumps that.

Are you for real - driving while having a heart attack?

Talk to people who suffer from lung disease-COPD and the impact of bus exhaust on their condition as opposed to regular car exhaust.Imagine having to organize your walk to go shopping in a fashion that minimizes streets with bus routes.

 

[Agrippa]

Please read my post carefully eastender, I stated that one would call an ambulance in the hypothetical situtaion of having a heart attack. Then in parathensis, as an aside for other general situations, I state that you might drive yourself if you can.

I can't beleive that a single bus every 10 minutes would do more damage than being exposed to all those cars. I'm sure that if they they are organizing their routes to get somewhere they minimize their proximity to any busy streets (ie ones with bus routes). Whether there are cars or buses.

I looked up the Wikipedia entry for COPD and read this: "It is most often due to tobacco smoking, but can be due to other airborne irritants such as coal dust, asbestos or solvents." This is what I am talking about. Prevention not cure. Stop smoking, stop the asbestos lobby from bullshitting us and telling us that it's a safe material... and there would be much less COPD afflicted people. These are all man made things! Less of our 'faulty' interventions -- the better we're off.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Your point is incomplete since you disregard the possibility of doing more harm than good.

I acknowledge the theoretical possiblity that action can cause more arm than good ("theoretical" because, in practice, I don't see how actions meant to reduce climate warming behaviours can cause more harm than good) but - again - can we, collectively, afford waiting that an optimal course of action is set forth? If we have the luxury of time and that our political leaders are implementing corrective policies and that we see results, then there's no point for activism: we're in good hands. But if, instead, our leaders won't or can't address the problems, who then will be taking charge? Analogy: you're in the middle of the woods, your buddy suffers a spinal cord injury, you are aware that your unqualified help may result to causing paralysis, but nightfall approaches, your friend's body language tells you he will die if he doesn't get medical attention soon. Again, you have no way to reach anyone and you're the only person who can get your friend to the hospital. What do you do?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Not when "cutting down on the crap" requires massive investment, which may save lives, while investing our limited resources in (eg) health care, will save lives.

The economics of global warmings says it pays off to eliminate climate warming behaviours over letting them fly. My guess is no one here read the Stern Review.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Doctors may feel that the time saved by taking a car to get to an emergency operation will save a life that may be lost if they had to wait for a bus.

In a society where cars would be eliminated in favour of public transportation, I'd confident that we'd be intelligent enough to take the necessary exceptions and allocate a limited numbers of vehicles for emergency cases. Come on!

 

[eastender]

Health Care in Quebec

In a society where cars would be eliminated in favour of public transportation, I'd confident that we'd be intelligent enough to take the necessary exceptions and allocate a limited numbers of vehicles for emergency cases. Come on!

ZM

The state of health care in Quebec contradicts your attempt at a point.Obviously the powers that be are not intelligent enough to allocate sufficient funding and all the derivative benefits of sufficient doctors,equipment,
space,support staff,training upgrades etc, so whence the expectation that sufficient emergency vehicles would be available?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

ZM

The state of health care in Quebec contradicts your attempt at a point.Obviously the powers that be are not intelligent enough to allocate sufficient funding and all the derivative benefits of sufficient doctors,equipment,
space,support staff,training upgrades etc, so whence the expectation that sufficient emergency vehicles would be available?

To begin with, the powers in place aren't intelligent enough to come up with a viable plan meant to reduce significantly the number of cars on the road. Point taken which also supports one of my premises: political leaders are not to be left the entire responsibility of taking care of environmental issues.

 

[JustBob]

It's not that simple. "Taking action" requires time, effort, and resources to be devoted to the task.

Our time, effort, and resources are not unlimited. If we use them against global warming, we are not using them to improve democracy, get better health care, reduce hunger, increase peace, or even lower other types of pollutants.

We may save and improve more lives by focusing on problems other than global warming. We don't know what the net cost of global warming will be, if anything. We do know the cost of hunger, poor health care, etc.

I agree with you completely. While it is wise to err on the side of caution in regards to the global warmimg issue, there are other, often more pressing issues to be considered.

 

[Agrippa]

there are other, often more pressing issues to be considered.

Such as waging wars, maintaining the status quo, making sure big-buisness isn't offended, getting re-elected...

 

[JustBob]

Such as waging wars, maintaining the status quo, making sure big-buisness isn't offended, getting re-elected...

Meh.......

 

[Agrippa]

Meh.......

I don't understand your shrug. Do you agree or disagree that politicians/people in power don't have their priorities right?

 

[JustBob]

I don't understand your shrug. Do you agree or disagree that politicians/people in power don't have their priorities right?

Obviously, since they are politicians.

I don't see what this has to do with what I was responding to.

 

[Agrippa]

I don't see what this has to do with what I was responding to.

You were saying there were more pressing issues. I took this to mean something like investing in health care (I still maintain that cutting down on pollution of all kinds (air, water, food) would be a good place to start... for the 3rd time: prevention not cure). But this is not really on the politicians agenda. It becomes an issue only if we show our displeasure with what's going on. A politician main concern is to keep their job. The majority of the population's interests are not what they worry about.

My vote as a consumer (I buy this, or that) means little. Turning off the lights when I'm not in a room, taking public transport and any other small actions, may add up if every single Canadian does them, but industry's contribution to the problem has far more weight... Any changes to remedy global warming must be legislated. Hence my support for Kyoto, even if it has been shown to me to be flawed (which I acknowledge). No one will voluntarily take on such a burden and be at a disadvantage against the competition.

I highly recommend people watch The Corporation documentary!

 

[eastender]

Inappropriate Analogy

Analogy: you're in the middle of the woods, your buddy suffers a spinal cord injury, you are aware that your unqualified help may result to causing paralysis, but nightfall approaches, your friend's body language tells you he will die if he doesn't get medical attention soon. Again, you have no way to reach anyone and you're the only person who can get your friend to the hospital. What do you do?

ZM,

Jesuit sophism when losing raises this type of analogy.Somewhat like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and when the other party asks for clarification claiming that they have admitted to the existence of angels.