xane
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,695
Scouse said:Perhaps you should take a closer look at, if not at Greenpeace, any organisation which only real vested interests are protecting the environment for the people of the world. Same goes for a lot of the anti-capitalist movements. I mean - they're not funded by chavs are they? They tend to be funded by an pretty intellectual section of our society. They're not trying to make money out of you..
This may have been true in the 1970s, but Greenpeace and other organisations of that ilk, are increasingly political. They may not be trying to make money, but they need political influence, and your vote, so they come up with scare stories to keep them in government.
Scouse said:They're trying to do what they believe is good for us and raise awareness of issues that affect us.
You can say that of any organisation, even the most extreme, it doesn't make it right.
Greenpeace, as with most environmental organisations, are all of the liberal-leftist utopian socialist variety, they are normally found in the same company as anti-capitalists and anti-globalisation movements. They cannot accept that perhaps, capitalism, free trade, private ownership, etc, might actually be better for the environment than the failed political systems they continue to support. They may well be wanting "what's best", but when that flies in the face of their personal political views, they become a bit myopic.
The sole reason Greenpeace is anti-nuclear is they are full of ex-CND people who had nothing to do once the cold war was over. Rather than admit that unilateral disarmament was the wrong policy after all, they've simply altered their worldview and promote the same stupid arguments with an environmentalist angle.
If Greenpeace wanted a better environment, they'd support nuclear power.