Debate and Discussion

How they SHOULD act.
WriterX at 5:03AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 26
joined: 8-6-2007
Someone
I had a long thought about all the organisations which claim to help the earth through open protest. I do not wish to name them due to my own personal political rules, but I simply do not agree with their methods, they are ineffective, vulgar and simply put should be banned.

Before you start jumping up and down listen to my idea of how an organisation which claims to defend the Earth SHOULD act.

1) Introduce Ecological projects. By this, I am not thinking building a Luna Park where you will try to explain children why you should segregate trash. I am thinking projects which will positively effect the environment. I do not remember any time in the past any Organisation proposing an idea of building a Wind Power Plant, presenting it to a government to get funding but at the same time analyzing all its good and bad sides. We should be human and see that if Nuclear Power is bad we should not close them down, but show and act against them through building our own Power.

Simply put, think economical, if you want Green Earth spend your funds on projects which will help and not pretend they do anything. Buying chains for your protesters is like buying guns for Africans and tell them they can use these to defend themselves from animals. Sure it might work but it's bull.

2) Think, then act. There are numerous cases where the so called Greens acted against the natural way and environment works. Sure, wolves kill other animals, but what happens if you kill them? You destroy the natural balance which is ment to be kept safe.

Well, then you might ask, what about us humans? Sure we might kill ourselves off, but why are we asociated with evil? Humans can work two ways, destroy but also rebuild. (more explained later). Before thinking about destroying a species for its behaviour we should see what the long term effects might be. First think, then act.

3) Humans, do good. Sure, we produce thousands of tonnes of trash which kill animals… but we can help these poor critters. We can create artificial habitats for close to be distinct animals and increase their reporduction rate so that once they are greater in number create a “wild” area outside and release groups of them in order to reintroduce the species to the habitat. This WILL work for all the animals I can think of, Fish, Mammals, reptiles, etc. Furthermore, plants too. So stop defending a turf of land because there is a rare flower. Take it to a lab, create a proper habitat for it and let it spread, first artificialy, and later release it.

4) Participate in Science projects. Obtain specialists who will help other companies (like Car companies) to create even more ecological engines, filters, etc. Saying cars are bad is like saying water is bad because we may drown. There are too many cars now to stop them, so help upgrade them. Be reasonable though. Progress is not sudden, it might take time to introduce a better engine, but give your few shillings to MAKE it better.

5) Educate, but don't create Propaganda. Of course, sometimes humans make mistakes, but don't make it seem like a sin. Analyze the situation, see why it has happened, and how it might be solved. Remember the problem in Canada? I know the solution. Help the fishermen build Artificial “Fish plants” which should be enough to make them earn enough for themselves and produce enough food for the population. Of course, the question about “Fish Rights” remains, well, you might be the first to propose them. (How many fish in a tank, etc, etc.) If it seems expensive at first look for ways to make it cheaper, more efficient. If you want to do good, understand why there is evil and try to solve the problem.

6) Look for government support. I know that most of you will ask, “What government support? We have it already!”. It's not support, you usualy blackmail them by creating so many protests against everything that… well… how can anybody operate with so many pests on their back? If you do anything from points 1 to 5 and it works the government will come to you and help you willingly, and not be forced to do so with a gun aimed at their head. Government support comes in financial form but also further help in fullfiling future projects. So that everyody is happy.


So, if I may ask all Green Organisations to consider these six points and change their ways so that we will all be happier. I have nothing against the old way, but it is simply old and uneffective. One more tip, stop being political. Remember, you can't stop progress. From my point of view your evolution stopped completely and you do more harm then good. Change it so that we all will live in a better world.


WriterX

I know it might seem funny that I quoted myself, but it comes from a different forum and furthermore I do not wish to change it so that the sense will be kept. What do you think of this standpoint? Is it right, wrong? What would you do?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:52PM
Aurora Moon at 6:14AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I see no flaws in what you have written. everything really does make sense in what you say.

I do agree that there are so-called “green” oraginzations who has acted in a very horrible hyrcoptical manner and it has really put an negative impact on how people treat people who happens to have opinions of wanting to have a cleaner earth.

and as you listed up above, there IS ways of doing things right without acting like an real asshole.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
ozoneocean at 7:19AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
I see two main flaws: Seeing “progress” as a linear stream, from bad to better. This is an artificial and incorrect characterisation of the true process; that of “change”. Change isn't inherently good or bad, it's simply change. Using the term “progress” also characterises the idea as “inevitable change for the better by the will of the majority”, this is also completely false. Change happens, of course it does, but it's not always good for the majority or for anyone.

The other flaw is thinking that all problems can be solved through technology and convincing people of things through reason and by showing examples of better methods. Technology doesn't solve all problems, often it's too expensive to research or develop different ways from the ones people currently use, often there are vested interests involved that prevent the use of other technologies- in these cases protest and putting political pressure on people is often the only viable way forward. The same goes for propaganda because the people who're funding “dirty” technology or environmentally harmful projects will often use political pressure, propaganda, bribes etc to further their agenda! Taking protests out of the equation would cripple your cause. The nuclear power industry is notorious for propaganda!

Take for example the logging, meat farming, and mining companies who destroy the Amazon. Often such activities are illegal but due to political pressure, propaganda and bribes, police and government allow and protect it. This is also an example of “progress”, because the rain forest progresses from being a jungle to a strip mine and vast treeless fields for cows to graze in. :)

I see what you're saying, and where you coming from; a sort of dismay at the vehemence and seeming unreasoning opposition, as well as apparent ineffectiveness of green campaigns. I'm not entirely against what you say either, but I feel you're not seeing the whole picture.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
WriterX at 8:24AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 26
joined: 8-6-2007
I agree with the first point. I cannot say much more about that.

But about the second point… It is true that research and development is at times expensive. But on the other hand if we don't do anything it will stagnate at that level. If humans never waged war the most advanced weapon we would have would be a rifle which would be designed solemnly for hunting purposes. There would be no need for Intercontinental Missiles or tanks. I assume that if enough research and development was undertaken it would not take long to design something cost-effective. The only non-ecological examples I can think of are based on computers and similar electrical equipment. Think of how big a mobile phone once was, and how big they may be now. We don't really know how much money went into improving a mobile phone, but I think if the same was done with let's say Solar Power, or finding more efficient ways of power production (less polluting too) we would never have the need for coal. Of course note this is a very far fetched idea from my side because getting rid of coal would have a negative impact on third world economies.

As to political pressure, as with all ideas this one was not filtered completely through a “Reality” filter. We are but only humans. We always want to achieve something through any means necessary. In this case the only hope would be a very effective law system (in the case of bribes) and hard-hats for political pressure. I cannot say how ruthless and plagued are the politicians all over the world, but I can tell you this not all of them care about the system. Eliminating them would be a nice idea… though then a nice Utopia starts to look like a Fascist state.

I don't like the idea of protests because this is the XXI century. I (falsely) believe that a person might be trusted. But only a blind man would not see that if such an organisation would bring benefits it should not be allowed to further its control. Nuclear power is a delicate issue. In terms of pollution it is much better to have a Nuclear Power Plant that a thousand Coal Power Plants. But the point is not to chain yourself to a chimney, the point is to subsitute Nuclear Power steadily.

Now, a time for a small countering :P

I believe you did not spot perhaps one small thing in my “plan” and that is the economy. The apparent reason why there are Nuclear Power Plants, large Animal Farms and similar projects is because they are efficient. Nobody cares if a Coal Plant causes pollution if it gives power for a factory. But on the other hand what other choice is there? A true “Green” organisation has to look at numerous asspects before acting. If such an organisation (today) was to shut down a Nuclear Power Plant they would do so without second thoughts. What about the thousands of people without light? Electricity? Well, at least the animals are safe…

We can't kickin with protests all over the place, forcing factories to shut down and people to stop using plastics. We have to upgrade our current ‘state’.But this does not mean make it be good solemnly for the environment. May there be a benefit for the people as well.

As to illegal operations all over the world… all we can do is pray for a party of uncorrupt politicians who will know what they are doing and act fully against it.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:52PM
ozoneocean at 9:09AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
I didn't say technology wasn't good or finding a better solution through technology should be avoided, I was merely pointing out a perceived flaw with what I saw in your original assertion that better technology was an alternative to protest. Well for the reasons I stated that simply can not always be the case. Yes of course, sometimes it can, but obviously vested interests, counter propaganda and costs are often against this.

With Nuclear power plants VS Coal there are lots of other issues, it's very complicated. Coal produces a lot of green house gas. But it's a lot cheaper to mine, there's a lot more of it, you don't really have to refine it, the plants are cheap to design, run and build, decommissioning them is also cheap. Nuclear power plants produce a lot of electricity with very little fuel. The thing is that the mining is a lot more expensive, the fuel needs to be expensively refined at expensive plants, designing and building nuclear plants is much more expensive and complicated, they're far more dangerous to run, not as safe in densely populated areas (in case of the worst), decommissioning them is very expensive and no safe long term method has yet been devised for handling the waste. The other problem of course is that the process can be very easily used to produce material for nuclear weapons, the most dangerous devices human kind has yet devised.

So… nothing is simple. ;)

About electricity: do we even need it? Well no, we don't actually. I like lights and my computer, but I don't really need them. lol! No need to go that far, but you have to realise the differences between needs and wants.

Another thing is that we need the environment to be healthy, for us, it's the only one we have. There is really no battle between “industry and the environment”, because whatever happens the environment is there anyway. The REAL problem is that one side ignores the pollution and degradation, minimises it and pretends it doesn't exist for short term profits, while the other can't help but see what's really happening. You don't destroy some magical animal loving fairyland when you pollute , it's not humans against nature, it's US fouling our own living space.

Look at in this way: You're a big family living in a single room. Three strong brothers decide it's ok for them to simply throw all their rubbish in one corner and use it as a toilet simply because it not THEIR side of the room and they are bigger than everyone else. What that does in reality is foul the entire room for everyone, themselves included. And sooner or later the rubbish will spread to their side as well.

Protest will always be a valuable and tool for causes where the fight is unbalanced: when one side has more money and power, all the other has is its own loud voice, protest is a way to make itself heard. It is only ONE tool though and not the only one! ;)

And I hope you don't get anti-globalisation protests against the WTO confused with green groups! Those are stupidly unfocused protests that attract idealistic and anarchical elements in society, usually disaffected, naive, or violent youth. The other problem is that they attract all sorts of poorly thought of protests from fringe groups all over the place to join with them into giant, nonsensical, undirected demonstrations of sheer mob “voice”. They give protests a bad name because they don't really stand for anything in particular except vocal defiance… Which is meaningless unless it's directed.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
Shar at 3:18PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
Penn and teller beat you to it.

Animal rights groups :

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYKdsIHE3is
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu17ZbAIcQc
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DkjM1B5kpI

Recycling :

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oloM_dSoW4
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvfQ0iffj40
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnoj9MPpi54

Environmentalists :

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=8917946

Enjoy.
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
WriterX at 3:22PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 26
joined: 8-6-2007
Someone
About electricity: do we even need it? Well no, we don't actually. I like lights and my computer, but I don't really need them.

I'm with you lad! *throws laptop out the window*


I like your standpoint. But the problem I see with most organisations called ‘green’ is that they mostly protest. I know it is a good tool, it brought a lot of good in the past. But what is a protest good for if you don't have an alternative? In Poland we had a giant issue which is still taking its toll where a road is to be built through an old ‘forest’ (ok, my bad, I forgot the name and what it was). The important thing about it is that it is a realy old area. It is a home for many birds and other critters.

On one hand we have the “greens” who don't want this habitat to be destroyed (since it is also a very nice touristic area) while on the other we have the inhabitants of a city through which at the moment all the heavy trucks are passing through.

The building process was about to start and suddenly *pop* came the “greens” and stopped everything. Their arguments obvious but on the other hand we cannot leave the road as it is because the danger level is simply too high.

The type of organisation I think of would cooperate with the government and make sure such last-minute accidents don't happen. That is the main thing that hurts me, that most “green” organisations seem to act at the last moment. Question, is this blackmail or a plot against them to keep everything secret?

On other news… I do understand that we destroy our own living space, but this should be stated in the organisation's agenda. Seriously, I always thought most organisations wanted to burn down all the factories and replant all the forests that were present in the area.

The main problem though with destorying your area is… you either control it from the start and make sure it does not degrade… or it falls apart so quickly that by the time you wake up *blam* you have a desert next door.

And no, thank god I did not mistake them with anti-globalists. I would say a thing or two about “what is right and wrong” with globalism but then we would have to start a new topic. :D
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:52PM
mapaghimagsik at 4:45PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Identifying the greens as any unified group is not going to help. By your reasoning, the Luddites are the ultimate “green” However, I heart technology, so there's that.

I support groups that are into conservation, and there are lots of them, so saying that the only green groups out there “just protest” only shows ya might want to look a little more at green type groups.

Sierra Club is really into conservation, and these guys sure look like a bunch of terrorists, to be sure!

;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
bobhhh at 8:38PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
ozoneocean
About electricity: do we even need it? Well no, we don't actually. I like lights and my computer, but I don't really need them. lol! No need to go that far, but you have to realise the differences between needs and wants.

Very well put. Although the irony of debating the need for electricity on internet doesn't escape me, point taken. We are forsaking planet with a blithe disregard for our environment. We build cars that go 40 miles faster than the speed limit. We build monstrous gas guzzlers, and why because we want them, not because we need them.

I'm afraid we're not likely to realize this until its too late.

If we're lucky, the same technological dynamo that got us into this trouble will likely be the one that bails us out. I wish we could just apologize and bury our technology in a big hole and have the planet become a nice place again.It's a bit late for that, but all is not lost.

You see machines and research are not inherently evil, it's just that you get that impression because usually the paranoid, greed-crazed folks with all the money are usually the ones in control.

It is within our power to fix things, and when and if we do, we will need every trick in the book, and technology can be pretty tricky.

Bob
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
ozoneocean at 9:27PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
Bobhhh, a good way to take things out of context… :P The very first paragraph of the post you quoted from addresses that exact issue:

"I didn't say technology wasn't good or finding a better solution through technology should be avoided, I was merely pointing out a perceived flaw with what I saw in your original assertion that better technology was an alternative to protest. Well for the reasons I stated that simply can not always be the case. Yes of course, sometimes it can, but obviously vested interests, counter propaganda and costs are often against this."
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
WriterX at 10:17PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 26
joined: 8-6-2007
… I am realy afraid now.
Ok, I am not but when people start thinking about discarding all the technology we currently have I want to hide in my underground bunker.


It is 7 AM here so I might be itchy with my writing. I simply no longer believe in the power of a “protest”. People protest all the time, to me all that effort that goes into a protest could be put to better use. Sure, there are people in the world that don't want to listen to good advice. There are people that don't give a penny about how much pollution is produced every day. Sure, there are different ways of educating people on destroying their environment. But people simply have enough problems every day to hear in the news about a third protest this week. Also nobody wants to go a Luna Park where the basics of recycling will be explained.

People only start acting when they feal the blastwave from the first bomb. Before that they will stay ignorant, why? Because they think it does not concern them. According to me destroying technology is not the answer, neither are wild protests nor long speeches where you explain how bad cars are. I can see only one solution and that is research of technology. Untill we don't find anything more efficient than Nuclear Power and cheaper than Coal we are stuck with both of them, so why grumble that they are here when we already havea few million peple grumbling about them? Get yer wits together and find an alternative. If a thousand monkeys could write Shakespear then a million earthlings will find a way to once and for all solve the problem of power… or are we just too lazy for the job?

bobhhh
If we're lucky, the same technological dynamo that got us into this trouble will likely be the one that bails us out.

Somebody give me an Amen!


last edited on July 14, 2011 4:52PM
bobhhh at 10:53PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
ozoneocean
Bobhhh, a good way to take things out of context… :P The very first paragraph of the post you quoted from addresses that exact issue:

"I didn't say technology wasn't good or finding a better solution through technology should be avoided, I was merely pointing out a perceived flaw with what I saw in your original assertion that better technology was an alternative to protest. Well for the reasons I stated that simply can not always be the case. Yes of course, sometimes it can, but obviously vested interests, counter propaganda and costs are often against this."


You're right, my bad. I do agree with a lot of your assertions, I just got confused on that one based on the whole of you posts and tone.

Again, my bad.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
ozoneocean at 11:07PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
Your finger is indeed itchy lol! (WriterX)
No one has said anything about anti-technology, quite the opposite. Both you and Bobhhh are creating a false bogeyman to fight against there and you're both wrong. ;)
(-edit- ah ok Bobhhh just read your reply :) )

Not only is no one here being anti tech, you're wrong in saying technology can solve all the problems of technology. That has never been the case throughout human history. Technology is just one of the methods. People have to adjust to it and adjust its usages, applications and limitations through laws, cultural practise and straight out social evaluation, as well as economic limits, and whatever else you can think of. Trust me.

In all that protest has often had a very legitimate place (learn about the industrial revolution in rural England), and will continue to do so as long as the power balance exists that I mentioned earlier. i.e. why should the factory owners pay to clean up a polluted river that's causing birth defects in a village downstream from them? The police won't take action, and nor will the environmental agencies or politicians so what are the villagers to do? Answer: Protest.

You may scoff but the exact scenario plays out even now in many places in India and China.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved