News They've done another study

[Raven]

It's quite funny when city folk go on and on about saving the planet, from their nice comfy plastic chairs, in their nice overly hot houses, after a busy week commuting up and down the country in their petrol guzzling overly heavy lumps of metal, to and from their overly heated then air conditioned, then overly heated, then air conditioned again steel, glass and concrete offices.

In some ways it's nice that they find the time away from all their rare metal and mineral gadgets to comment.

In short, the amount of hypocrisy in the thread is startling.

Live carbon free (or whatever the latest marketing buzz word is this week) or stfu about it.

 

[Scouse]

I refer you to my last post Raven.

 

[Raven]

I agree with you. However, there are things people can do to themselves that won't have such a massive impact on their lives.
Live close to work.
Buy local.
Don't buy the latest greatest shiny thing every year, if your existing shiny thing works then keep it.
Don't ramp the heating up at the first sign of a chill, get a jumper.
Moan about people dicking about with the temperature at work (Again they can get a jumper)
Don't drive for the sake of it.

If people actually care that is. And I mean really care, not just care because it's fashionable. Do something about it, change does not happen by reading the Guardian and complaining at dinner parties.

 

[Scouse]

What makes you think that he's not already doing those things? I mean - pretty much everyone does that simply because of the economics of it (apart from "live close to work" - which is a bit harsh as most people don't have a choice).

And that's the main point tbfh - it's the economics that matter. Systemic change is the only change that really matters.

I realised that early on so don't use my Environmental Management & Technology degree in my working life. I realised that unless the system changes everything else is practically a waste of time. Rowing upstream n' all that...

 

[Raven]

People in general, it's not directed at anyone in particular.

 

[Job]

I like to LOL with a capital LOL at the well meaning and the misguided, owning one large dog is the same carbon footprint as an average car with average mileage.
Yes you read that right, it produces the same C02 to build and run a car as feed a dog.
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15412908
How many planet loving hippies do you know who have a few dogs...bastards!

 

[opticle]

What Scouse said in all his threads I agree with what Raven has said in parts too - you're right, I think the way these issues are used and acted upon by governments and businesses is criminal.

I'm not saying everyone should wear hemp clothes and rely purely on communal body heat as an energy source, I just don't think its right to know that we are shitting all over the planet and not feel like we should try to do that a little less if we can, particularly if there are theoretical risks that could result in catastrophe. We have to try to understand it more and protect the good parts of what we have - and not get pissed off when someone has made an effort to understand what's going on, and its something we don't want to hear. I don't think anyone can really argue against that, nor that companies and governments pollute far, far more than they have to - in order to make a few million extra bucks. I don't think you can argue that that is right either.

The arguments saying "Go live in the forest then" don't really merit a response, but anyway, the Catch 22 is that in order for research and development of better ways to do things, there are necessary evils, for example in healthcare and renewable energy (which is necessary, when oil, etc. are predicted to run out..) so taking arguments to extremes isn't the right way either and isn't constructive.

For the record, I don't own a car, I live two mins walk from work and I don't have a dog Interesting stat though Job, that makes I sad, I want one ​

 

[Tom]

Whilst I don't disagree with your fact about having kids being the worst thing you can do, you're still arguing from the intellectually despicable standpoint that he should be punishing himself if his views on climate change are to be taken as valid.

You can hold views on the subject of climate change, capitalism, communism etc, but not have to live your life in a way that's extra-ordinary. You campaign for systemic change - but to live the life without that systemic change is to condemn yourself and your family to unnecessary pain.

You don't have to live the life of a societal pariah to hold a particular intellectual viewpoint.

I agree with you on most things but I find it abhorrent when people use the "if you don't live that way you're not allowed to hold your views" argument - it's intellectual bullying at its worst.

You can call it whatever you like, I view it as hypocrisy. Tokenism at its most evident.

 

[Uncle Sick]

No, simply not caring whichever way it goes is exactly that; not caring.

Companies and conspiracies be f*cked, don't know about your kid-infested brain(since that's an issue now?), but i can think for myself and don't need verification on said thoughts from someone else.

Well, sorry to hear that. You sound like a bitter single. But that's your personal issue, I guess. And my brain has been 'kid-infested' ever since I had kids. That's the nature of the beast.
Animals take care of their offspring and make sure to provide for them until they can take care of themselves.

The biggest contribution you could have made toward ending anthropogenic climate change was to not have children.

Good job.

I get what you're saying. But I sincerely doubt that my kids can compete on the scale global corporations shank the planet (unless they can become CEO's of global corporations...).
I also do realize that the biggest problem planet Earth has, is us. I think we can all contribute.. like not throwing batteries in the trash, not dumping old meds into the toilet.
That whole "I can't change it", "I don't care", "devil bite the hindmost" - attitude feels like conservative hipster bullshit. tbh. Or single-bitter, like Toto's.

 

[Scouse]

You can call it whatever you like, I view it as hypocrisy. Tokenism at its most evident.

OK Tom. Lets turn it around. How should we live if we want to minimally impact the environment, bearing in mind that we live in a capitalist economy and may live some distance from our place of work.

Details please. I mean, you keep telling me I'm not allowed to be anti-capitalist unless I've got the solution to one of the world's biggest problems. You must know how we can all live better environmentally-friendly lives.

Enlighten us

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, sorry to hear that. You sound like a bitter single. But that's your personal issue, I guess. And my brain has been 'kid-infested' ever since I had kids. That's the nature of the beast.
Animals take care of their offspring and make sure to provide for them until they can take care of themselves.

Not bitter at all, just because you care because of your kids(which you brought up as some kind of "holier then thou" argument), doesn't mean others have to.

Fact of the matter is, humans are doomed to perish way before the air gets f*cked.

 

[Tom]

OK Tom. Lets turn it around. How should we live if we want to minimally impact the environment, bearing in mind that we live in a capitalist economy and may live some distance from our place of work.

Details please. I mean, you keep telling me I'm not allowed to be anti-capitalist unless I've got the solution to one of the world's biggest problems. You must know how we can all live better environmentally-friendly lives.

Enlighten us

I don't want to minimally impact the environment, but a great many people could start simply by cycling to work, rather than driving. You know the sort, 10 miles from work and need a car. Lazy. I'd say that 50 miles daily is probably about the most anyone could be expected to commute via bike.

 

[Uncle Sick]

Not bitter at all, just because you care because of your kids(which you brought up as some kind of "holier then thou" argument), doesn't mean others have to.

Fact of the matter is, humans are doomed to perish way before the air gets f*cked.

I don't need to bring up my kids to be holier than thou. Unless you're a shitty parent, you kind of care about how you leave the place for the next generation. It's in your DNA and all.
And I don't see how humans will perish before the air gets fucked. As you state 'fact of the matter'. Do back that statement up, Doctor Toto. With facts maybe.

 

[Scouse]

I don't want to minimally impact the environment, but a great many people could start simply by cycling to work, rather than driving. You know the sort, 10 miles from work and need a car. Lazy. I'd say that 50 miles daily is probably about the most anyone could be expected to commute via bike.

Y'see. It's not as easy as you think is it.

Suggesting a 25 mile bike trip at the beginning and end of every working day is patently ridiculous. Hour and a half commute each way. How about at winter, in the cold and dark? Or if you have kids and need to be home? Or if, god forbid, you don't want to burn up 3 hours of your day on top of the 8 hours just getting to your place of work and back.

I guess if you don't want to do that you must just be "lazy" eh?

The fact is - we live in a capitalist society and behavioural changes from the societally predetermined norm have a very real cost attached. You can't realistically make much of a difference other than try to be energy efficient, buy responsibly, cut down on your car use where possible etc. etc. - which is what the vast majority of people do already.

Failure to realise this makes you unreasonable Tom. You expect people to really harm their quality of life whilst all those around them do not, just to hold an intellectual viewpoint? What human, without mental illness, would do that?

Systemic change is the only reasonable solution. And to have systemic change people must be free to think of a better world and be able to argue their validly-held intellectual viewpoints without intellectual bullying.

Your line of argument here is, ultimately, against freedom of thought.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't need to bring up my kids to be holier than thou.

Yeah you do fine without as well

 

[Uncle Sick]

Yeah you do fine without as well

Man... part of me actually expected you to actually sit down and find some facts to back up your arbitrary statements. Not a lot has changed since '03

 

[old.Tohtori]

Nah, just can't be arsed. You have your view, i have mine, only objection to yours is that somehow it -seems- you're bringing kids into it as a higher moral ground.

 

[Uncle Sick]

Nah, just can't be arsed. You have your view, i have mine, only objection to yours is that somehow it -seems- you're bringing kids into it as a higher moral ground.

I 'used' the kids argument in response to your reply. Since we do have a responsibility in that department... unless you're a bitter single and don't care.
If assuming any response to your word husks is automatically a holier than thou attitude, so be it.

And if having kids is irresponsible because they might just cause even more pollution... last time I checked I'm a member of the human species and hard wired to procreate. That doesn't mean I don't have to give a shit and throw batteries into the nearest body of water.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I 'used' the kids argument in response to your reply. Since we do have a responsibility in that department... unless you're a bitter single and don't care.
If assuming any response to your word husks is automatically a holier than thou attitude, so be it.

And if having kids is irresponsible because they might just cause even more pollution... last time I checked I'm a member of the human species and hard wired to procreate. That doesn't mean I don't have to give a shit and throw batteries into the nearest body of water.

That's the thing, it's not OUR responsibility. That's a faulty misconception that children are anyone elses responsibility.

I said nothing against children mind you, don't know where that last bit came from.

 

[Tom]

Y'see. It's not as easy as you think is it.

Suggesting a 25 mile bike trip at the beginning and end of every working day is patently ridiculous. Hour and a half commute each way. How about at winter, in the cold and dark? Or if you have kids and need to be home? Or if, god forbid, you don't want to burn up 3 hours of your day on top of the 8 hours just getting to your place of work and back.

Now who's taking the piss? I suggested 25 miles as a limit and you use that as an example? Besides which, to many people driving 25 miles will take at least an hour anyway. Try driving the 20 miles across Manchester at rush hour - it's often much quicker on a bicycle.

Failure to realise this makes you unreasonable Tom. You expect people to really harm their quality of life whilst all those around them do not, just to hold an intellectual viewpoint? What human, without mental illness, would do that?

Lots of people already do this. Vegetarians, for example.

Systemic change is the only reasonable solution. And to have systemic change people must be free to think of a better world and be able to argue their validly-held intellectual viewpoints without intellectual bullying.

Your line of argument here is, ultimately, against freedom of thought.

Aww, those poor people. Being intellectually bullied must be so awful. They should go buy a car or something.

 

[Scouse]

Now who's taking the piss? I suggested 25 miles as a limit and you use that as an example? Besides which, to many people driving 25 miles will take at least an hour anyway. Try driving the 20 miles across Manchester at rush hour - it's often much quicker on a bicycle.

You chose the example, Tom. Crying "no fair" when your own argument is turned on you is a bit rich.

Your example was patently ridiculous in the first place, as are your "hey, if you live in this tiny specific set of circumstnces you're probably better off on a bike" examples. I'm meeting your extreme-example argument selection and showing how bleeding daft it is.

If you want a more reasonable discussion on the subject then perhaps you could address the central question of how people are supposed to live better and more environmentally responsible lives in a capitalist economy.

Remember - you're the one who says they have to do that before an intellectual position they hold is allowed to be valid.

Lots of people already do this. Vegetarians, for example

This is pure bullshit.

How is vegetarianism a hard thing which lowers the quality of your life or makes it in any way more difficult?

Bear in mind that I effectively was one for 7 years of my life so I know exactly what I'm talking about...

(As a distracting aside - if you believe in the equal value of life, regardless of the size or cuteness of animal involved, then vegetarianism results in much more loss of life per meal than omnivorism does).

Aww, those poor people. Being intellectually bullied must be so awful. They should go buy a car or something.

Yes. Intellecual bullying is awful.

Having your well-considered and deeply held views designated "invalid" for no good intellectual reason is the same as having your well-considered and deeply held viewd designated invalid simply because you're black.

Thought-crime

 

[Scouse]

Man... part of me actually expected you to actually sit down and find some facts to back up your arbitrary statements. Not a lot has changed since '03

Toht's toht. You don't expect continental drift to have changed in that time do you?

 

[Job]

When people say the planet is being ruined, obviously this refers to it not being nice to live on anymore,as George Carlin said 'Rich environmentalists don't care about the planet, they just want somewhere nice to drive their Volvo's'.
If their was no grass on Earth and it suddenly started growing, we would start a worldwide effort to exterminate it before it smothered the world.
Maybe change is good.

 

[Scouse]

When people say the planet is being ruined, obviously this refers to it not being nice to live on anymore...

That's retarded. So, so retarded.

You think that environmentalists are thinking about themselves whilst they campaign for saving the [ insert endangered flora or fauna of choice here ]....?

 

[Tom]

This is pure bullshit.

Most of your post is bullshit. You're like a politician, sounding as though you're answering the question but really just spouting the same tired old invective. And you're being hypocritical in your responses, too.

Worse still, you're like a 1980s Labour politician.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Toht's toht. You don't expect continental drift to have changed in that time do you?

If i was being trollish toht, i would've come up with some bullsh*t instead of saying i can't be arsed to argue it

Usually when people bring in some kind of "i'm better then you because of X2 argument, i tend to find the discussion over.

But yeah, george carlin pretty much sums up all the "save x" opinions i got.

 

[Scouse]

Most of your post is bullshit. You're like a politician, sounding as though you're answering the question but really just spouting the same tired old invective. And you're being hypocritical in your responses, too.

Worse still, you're like a 1980s Labour politician.

I disagree. I'm attempting to give answers, unlike thine good self.

Tell me, exactly, how my response of "bullshit" (plus additional explanation and engaging questioning) to your totally incorrect assertion on vegetarians is hypocritical or attempting to avoid an answer?

 

[Job]

That's retarded. So, so retarded.

You think that environmentalists are thinking about themselves whilst they campaign for saving the [ insert endangered flora or fauna of choice here ]....?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
We might eventually render the planet uninhabitable for lifeforms like us, but something else will take over.
Plankton pretty well destroyed the planet for organisms that like to breath methane.

 

[Scouse]

Ah. You're just trolling.


(Or do you really think that humans can't hold the intellectual position that we're responsible for ~40% of all species being endangered, that it's bad, and that they want to do something about it - regardless of how it affects the not-at-all-endagered 7-blillion-strong human species?)

 

[old.Tohtori]

On that subject i have wondered if an endangered species is just a selfish human idea. In the big picture, us killing off pandas would mean that pandas are no more, as on tin really, but what's the real effect/harm in it? This happens in nature all the time, so is the notion that we're endangering species just a misguided conception of morality?