News They've done another study

[Scouse]

Caring or not means f*ck all, what have you done lately? Simple question, hoping to see atleast some exmples of this "caring" Scouse and Sick claim to have.

I regularly donate cold hard cash to conservation projects that I've bothered to go see for myself to check how they work. How about that?


That's the only example I'm gong to give (and the only time I'm going to mention it ever on this forum). But lets look, just once, at my life:

Personality first, eh?:

From a four year degree in Environmental Management and Technology, during which I worked for a year in the chemical industry, I went to work for one of the world's largest environmental consultancies.

It wasn't long before the realisation hit home that these companies are flailing pointlessly against an undending tide. Much to my annoyance (and dashed dreams) I came to understand that the problems are systemic and the only solution to these problems is a political solution. Everything else is, almost, wasted life.

Sure, you can make small saves here and there, but without the political will to make systemic changes then the ravaging of the planet is continuing apace. Mitigation is not enough.


Faced with that fact I decided on a career change and made the mistake of moving into IT. I've a high IQ and find it a piece of piss, but I didn't understand how mind numbingly dull it can be. Cash is much better than the environmental job tho - they paid a pittance - as do all companies that understand that people of concience can be exploited.

I was made redundant at the end of my first year. Shockingly - I'd directly made the company I worked for over a million pounds (on my tiny salary). So I decided to go contracting - make the economic system work for me rather than against me. Yep - being a contractor is anti-capitalist (and the only way you can be so in a capitalist economy without cutting your nose off to spite your face (or living in dung, as Tom seems to expect)).

Global warming was an issue I was very much aware of from the 1990's and despite the ditching of the environmental career I've followed all the research (and wider research, science in general is an interest). Still, everything points towards the conclusion that only systemic change is ultimately worthwhile.


So. Other than having a deeper understanding of the environmental problems that face us than the vast majority of humans (which isn't arrogance, it's just fact borne out of my education and experience), what lifestyle changes can I make or have I made?

The same as anyone else. Energy efficiency savings. Ethical purchasing. The occasional dabble in carbon offsetting (even when I'm not sure it's worth it - it's good for the conscience but makes you feel like a fool sometimes). I've owned just 3 cars since I was 17 (the vast majority of environmental waste is in the manufacturing and construction, not the fuel use) - all have been very well looked after but hardly ever cleaned. Yadda yadda yadda.

What else can you realistically do in a capitalist economy? I still need to eat. Still need to earn a living. Still need a place to live. I'm human so I'm a social animal - so I still need to see my friends. I have a real interest in travel - so I travel.

Are some of these things at odds with my strongly held, extremely well-thought-out convictions? Of, fucking, course! - But what choice do you have?


The answer, of course, is none.


Too many arguments (yours, Toms, others) are bandied around telling people that they need to justify their lifestyles before they're alowed to hold an intellectual position. That is abhorrent. It's white-van-man thinking and an act of intellectual violence.

When I argue for systemic change I do not need to justify my lifestyle any more than those who were against Apartheid yet working and living in South Africa had to justify theirs. They were, after all, working in jobs that were helping the south african economy - and therefore working both in and for the system that killed blacks because of their skin colour.

I'm anti capitalist but I live in a capitalist economy. I've got no fucking choice about that and like every human I want better. I want more. To deny that is to deny being what I am.


Tom posted all the union wages in an attempt to support his own point of view. As far as I'm concerned he's missing the point - no human in their right mind chooses poverty, chooses a poorer lifestyle than their peers, punishes themselves, when an opportunity presents itself. By default we're all hypocrites, if you like.

Everyone chooses the cash. Almost everyone chooses the great lifestyle. Those who don't live like fucking swampy.


That is why only systemic change can bring about the necessary change. It's the system that defines the choices we make as a race and constantly raging against the machine makes for a depressed and unhappy existence.


Therefore, anyone who says you can't hold an intellectual viewpoint unless you choose to live like swampy is a CUNT who denies what it is to be human.




Now, before you go picking individual lines out of this post to justify your own position - take it in it's entirity. I won't be self-justifying any more and I feel almost dirty posting this anyway.

 

[Scouse]

Actually the only rational choice is to exploit every resource for the benefit of our species - if your purely rational rather than emotional about it thats the only conclusion.

I think that's a massive sack of short-sighted wank rynnor.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'd change by saying that you DO have a choice, you always have a choice unless you're bound to something(jail being a good example...or wife...take your pick ). If you want to get rid of the capitalist way a bit more, find a spot on the globe, save up and move. You might have to give away luxuries, but then again that shouldn't be your maingoal as an anti-capitalist.

I was curious on what grounds you hokld your views and you delivered(assuming it's not bullsh*t as it IS the internet), well done, now i can actually respect more your views on enviroment yaddayadda. I wasn't expecting you to live in a cave with supreme copper veins to give good WIFI connections, i just expected something.

That's the thing though, you're an exception, and i'll admit that i first put you down as just one of the hypocritical "worldcarers" that seem to breed in dark eco-holes, those people need to shut it, or put their actions where their rants are. As i said, caring means nothing, actions do. I don't have the means to do anything about the enviromental changes, so i don't care about them. If i had billions, i most likelly would pop a few hundred million into keeping the nature, to some degree, better, but since i can't do anything about it, i don't claim to care.

Simple fact being, i don't care about things i can't change 'cause there's enough to think about without the useless worries.

Oh FYI; Even if i agree with some points, don't put me in the same hole with Tom, or any other person, judge me b what i say as i really much dislike the us vs them mentality around here.

 

[Scouse]

I'd change by saying that you DO have a choice, you always have a choice unless you're bound to something(jail being a good example...or wife...take your pick ). If you want to get rid of the capitalist way a bit more, find a spot on the globe, save up and move.

So - no choice.

Move away from my friends, my family, the life I've built for myself and try to find a "spot on the planet" and live like a hermit? You do know that capitalism is a world economic system? You do know I'm anti-socialism/communism too?

It's futile. So I'm arguing my intellectual position as that's all I've got left. It's why it hurts a lot when I get told I'm not allowed to hold those views...

That's the thing though, you're an exception, and i'll admit that i first put you down as just one of the hypocritical "worldcarers" that seem to breed in dark eco-holes, those people need to shut it, or put their actions where their rants are. As i said, caring means nothing, actions do.

This I disagree with. But you've given me the reason why in your very next sentence:

I don't have the means to do anything about the enviromental changes, so i don't care about them.

Nobody does. We need systemic change.

All this "do your bit" guff is just that - guff.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not tlling you not to hold those views, feel free, just might be prudent to hold the view in equal stance with other people.

There's a choice still, hard one as it may be, but it's a choice that's possible.

Shame you did the one thing you asked not to do and only grabbed that one to comment on, unless you have a way that if you don't comment, you agree on it (which is fine btw, just don't know)

 

[Scouse]

Shame you did the one thing you asked not to do and only grabbed that one to comment on, unless you have a way that if you don't comment, you agree on it (which is fine btw, just don't know)

I didn't massively disagree with much in your post and yep, that's generally the case. You were gracious, thanks.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Nobody does. We need systemic change.

All this "do your bit" guff is just that - guff.

That's a fair point, though a long as there's no change on that scale, i'll pretty much leave the guff to guffers. Not sure, but i might agree on the need for a large scale change on things.

If the system changes, i'll most likely change along as i always do.

(FYI: good to know how you work on agreements, makesita much more pleasant to know it's not ignored )

 

[Job]

Us sceptics simply believe that the conclusion drawn are swayed by idealism, the same eco idealism that has westerners defending the rights of Tigers to kill villagers in India.
Don't get me wrong, without an eco movement, there would be an elevator up Everest and drill platforms in Yosemite and I'm an ex greenpeace supporter myself, but as I grew older and more Daily mail, my bullshit detector started going off and seemingly simplistic problems that were being thwarted by by evil capatilists, were just that, idealistic solutions to complex problems that I was utterly incapable of understanding from my armchair.
The press has long given up on the science, because it's boring and now concentrate on purile arguments from both sides.

 

[rynnor]

I think that's a massive sack of short-sighted wank rynnor.

I'm sorry but being rational is not the same as being nice - rationality is implacable and un-sentimental - you can make your own arguements but do not pretend they are the 'rational' thing to do.

Oh and if we are doing the environmental credentials thing I have worked for the WWF, set up nest sites for European cranes, manned a lookout post on top of a mountain to keep watch for fires and fought a forest fire armed with a shovel.

But much of the Eco movement seems to have been highjacked by anarchists and anti-capitalists who wish to tear things down without any practical and realistic solutions.

 

[Scouse]

I'm sorry but being rational is not the same as being nice - rationality is implacable and un-sentimental - you can make your own arguements but do not pretend they are the 'rational' thing to do.

Rather than fluff about saying I'm being irrational - tell me why?


Bear in mind that I'm not actually against "exploit[ing] every resource for the benefit of our species"...

 

[rynnor]

It was in response to your statement:

"I think caring for the environment is the only rational choice people can make, based on evidence. A dispassionate assessment of the evidence leads inexorably to that conclusion."

Caring for the environment i.e. maintaining stasis is neither rational nor feasible. Evidence shows that exploiting the hell out of our environment has lead to our species dominating the planet, growing rapidly in number and enjoying a high standard of living.

 

[Scouse]

Caring for the environment i.e. maintaining stasis is neither rational nor feasible

I never said maintaining stasis. I said caring for the environment.

For example - remember the deepwater horizon oil spill accident that happened last year? 780 million litres of crude oil spunked into the ocean.

The same amount of oil goes into the environment every year from other sources - needlessly.

How is it "irrational" to want to stop such destructive waste? (And, indeed, profit from it).

And;

Evidence shows that exploiting the hell out of our environment has lead to our species dominating the planet, growing rapidly in number and enjoying a high standard of living.

Way to state one side of an argument.

Yes, of course I agree in general terms that that's a good thing. But at what cost?

If, of course, you don't give a shit about the cost (or the environment) - say so...

 

[rynnor]

I never said maintaining stasis. I said caring for the environment. For example - remember the deepwater horizon oil spill accident that happened last year? The same amount of oil goes into the environment every year from other sources - needlessly.

Way to state one side of an argument.

Needlessly? I thought we still needed oil perhaps I was wrong Its rational to cap a leak as fast as you can as it wastes product and kills fish we could eat - thats rational. Arguing for a ban on such drilling is clearly irrational.

Your arguement only has one side - sorry. I dont neccesarily disagree with you but thats on the basis of my personal opinion which I acknowledge as such. But you seem to be lecturing people based on what I hope I'm showing is just your personal opinion.

 

[Scouse]

Needlessly? I thought we still needed oil perhaps I was wrong Its rational to cap a leak as fast as you can as it wastes product and kills fish we could eat - thats rational. Arguing for a ban on such drilling is clearly irrational.

Are you trolling now? Where have I argued from a ban on such drilling?

What I said is - deepwater horizon, bad accident, dropped 780 million litres of crude into the ocean. Right? With me?

Then I said - did you know, 780 million litres of crude get spunked into the ocean every year, needlessly. I.E. It doesn't need to happen. It's carelessness, or incompetence that does it, has terrible effects on the environment (including human health) and it goes unpunished.


I'm not saying don't drill for oil. I'm saying don't fucking waste the stuff, lose out on profit and damage the environment. Total reported spillage from tankers alone from 1970-2010 is nearly seven billion litres.

How is wanting to put a stop to that "irrational", or against your profit motive?

After the Exxon Valdez disaster the US government was under massive pressure from the environmental lobby to legislate. They wanted to resist (the oil companies went bananas) but public pressure was so great that the US said all tankers operating in their waters must be double-hulled (amongst other things) It made a *massive* difference to the amount of spillages. Massive.

Explain to me - how is that "irrational".

 

[rynnor]

Are you trolling now? Where have I argued from a ban on such drilling?

Its trolling to disagree with you now? Next you'll be calling me a heretic

I already stated that it was rational to minimise leaks in my previous post so cant see how you can argue about that?

On the moratorium on drilling - thats exactly what the environmental lobby called for at the time of the accident - which is extremely irrational since clearly the leak was in no-ones interest and we Still need the oil.

A fully rational system would help in cases like these as the polluter would have to pay for their impacts on other human resources like fish stocks as BP had to do but which didnt happen after the Exxon Valdez but on the other hand there wouldnt be any help for pelicans etc. which basically compete for fish stocks.

 

[Scouse]

Its trolling to disagree with you now? Next you'll be calling me a heretic

Come on rynnor. You know asked if you were trolling because you mentioned stopping oil drilling, when I never said anything of the sort

 

[rynnor]

I was just moving things on since we agreed on the priority to prevent leaks - the reason it doesnt naturally happen in the US is due to corruption of their political system but really those who damage a valuable resource should pay to sort it. Thus leakages become an expensive risk and people spend more to prevent them.

 

[Scouse]

Can't disagree with that.

 

[rynnor]

The problem area's are where human interests are in conflict with nature.

For instance there's no rational interest in saving tigers - they require too much dedicated space that could be used by humans, they are a threat to domestic animals and humans and they are little use for tourism because the only place your likely to see them is a zoo since they are shy nocturnal predators who range over vast distances.

They look nice so humans will maintain a captive stock but the wild ones are doomed.

 

[Uncle Sick]

LEarn to read, i didn't say he was condecending, he did

I also didn't ask if you were mad, i said it's not your fault.

So I misread it, my bad. You're still a tool.

 

[Job]

And stlil the carbon levels rise..Canada is pulling out, which is quite sensible, they could cut growth for ten years and one forest fire would undo the lot.
As I have said many times before, the only thing you can count on is NO-ONE will do anything about it,
even if the water is lapping at the stock exchange door, they'll just pay someone to jack it up.

 

[Scouse]

And stlil the carbon levels rise..Canada is pulling out, which is quite sensible, they could cut growth for ten years and one forest fire would undo the lot.
As I have said many times before, the only thing you can count on is NO-ONE will do anything about it,
even if the water is lapping at the stock exchange door, they'll just pay someone to jack it up.

Funny how an economic system can promote mutually assured destruction, eh?

Perhaps we need systemic change?

 

[old.Tohtori]

So I misread it, my bad. You're still a tool.

Only to those who deserve it