|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Stout wrote: |
| Quote: |
This is just ridiculous. I've walked my fair share of beaches and I've yet to see any asphyxiated porpoises
All I'm interested in is facts, not hyperbole and personal anecdotes.
I enjoy nature a lot, actually. I often go hiking and camping and I've been all around the world. As far as I can tell personally most of the world is pretty much the same as always... |
Yes, you on your own have covered the planet, therefore your personal anecdotes are facts 
Yes, the planet is "pretty much the same as always" (you've been around since before the Industrial Revolution, eh?), meaning your planet, which is obviously in orbit somewhere very far away from this one. |
There is nothing hypocritical in what I wrote, I was merely responding directly to that poster's assertions (and false assumption) that I know nothing about nature because I've never stepped foot outside. I merely stated the fact that I have spent a fair amount of time in the great outdoors (as much as anyone); however in no way am I claiming to be an expert (apparently the only experts are people who can quote environmentalist propaganda as long as it's "peer reviewed")...
What gets me is that I'm supposed to somehow provide "proof" in the debate that the environment is not on the verge of collapse... as if the onus is on anyone other than those making the claim (in this case the environmentalists, the same group that has been caught lying and deliberately fabricating data in the AGW debate). Sorry, but I don't need to prove a negative; the burden of proof is entirely on the environmentalists, since they are the ones who want to control the lives of the rest of us (even though we just want to be left alone). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Real environmental issues include radioactive meltdowns and weapons testing that cause cancer rates to skyrocket and GMOs released into the wild. There are other real issues that effect human health and living standards. Beyond that, I don't really care if there's a bit of trash in the ocean or more CO2 in the air. Humanity is more valuable to me (a human) than some made up Gaia spirit (ie. anthropomorphism of nature). I do care about humans exploiting other humans, esp. the elite using the government to dominate the rest of us (and what better excuse than "to save the earth" ). People like Julius probably mean well, but they fail to understand that they are being manipulated and that there is an agenda at play (one involving truly epic amounts of power and money if the bankers succeed in getting their carbon taxes pushed through). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stout wrote: |
| And your normal Joe who just wants any excuse to take the easy road and not worry about the environment is then given what he's been looking for. |
right. Most humans do not have interest in the natural environment, much less do they want to feel responsible for it.
We basically want to exploit and dominate it. Most people do not like the idea of causing pain, suffering or cruelty to other living things, or e.g. making other species extinct- but they just don't care enough to stop their harmful activities. The urgent wants of our selfish modern lifestyle supercede everything else.
There are a lot of outdated attitudes and ignorance. Most people are urban-dwellers nodays, meaning they have completely lost touch with the natural environment: they understand very little about it, much less do they care.
Typically the testosterone-filled approach is that it is manly to kill, hunt, commit cruelty, and conquer the wilderness. Apparently there is something macho about doing damage to other species and to the environment. It is only wusses who actually learn about the environment and care about other species, and such people can be ridiculed as "tree-huggers" or a host of other cliches to describe whatever you do not understand or mischaracterise whoever threatens the profits of your multinational company.
This is the typical thinking sadly. Humans are usually slow to adapt to new realities (it is a generational process) and we will probably not change our attitudes fast enough to counter the environmental problems that we are causing.
But whats worse is when such people pretend that the environment is absolutely fine and that it can suffer any amount of abuse without adverse consequences. That is just foolish bravado borne out of ignorance.
Actually environmentalism, the thinking of those who care about the health of our natural world does not consist of a group of drug addled hippies, but thousands of scientists and conservationists who are busy researching and documenting our planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Stout wrote: |
| And your normal Joe who just wants any excuse to take the easy road and not worry about the environment is then given what he's been looking for. |
right. Most humans do not have interest in the natural environment, much less do they want to feel responsible for it.
We basically want to exploit and dominate it. Most people do not like the idea of causing pain, suffering or cruelty to other living things, or e.g. making other species extinct- but they just don't care enough to stop their harmful activities. The urgent wants of our selfish modern lifestyle supercede everything else. |
Taking care of yourself and your family and trying to increase your living standard is anything but selfish. It is natural and good. As for other species going extinct, it happens all the time (and happened long, long before humans were around). Sacrificing our standard of living, and that of our children, just to save a few trees or whales (or micro-organisms that have nothing to do with us) is a despicable anti-human idea.
| Quote: |
There are a lot of outdated attitudes and ignorance. Most people are urban-dwellers nodays, meaning they have completely lost touch with the natural environment: they understand very little about it, much less do they care.
Typically the testosterone-filled approach is that it is manly to kill, hunt, commit cruelty, and conquer the wilderness. Apparently there is something macho about doing damage to other species and to the environment. It is only wusses who actually learn about the environment and care about other species, and such people can be ridiculed as "tree-huggers" or a host of other cliches to describe whatever you do not understand or mischaracterise whoever threatens the profits of your multinational company. |
Actually nearly all the bleeding-heart environmentalist Gaia-worshippers I've met have been city dwellers. Go back a few hundred years before the industrial revolution and you'd probably find very few people living "in harmony" with nature. Removing all the mystical nonsense, nature is actually scary and dangerous without technology to keep us secure. Any human living "at one" with nature is liable to die very young. Technology, resource consumption and economic build-up makes our lives infinitely better; going back to the stone age would be utterly miserable and inhumane. That's not to say it isn't pleasant to take a stroll through the woods and listen to the birds sing, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in the middle of a rainforest.
| Quote: |
| This is the typical thinking sadly. Humans are usually slow to adapt to new realities (it is a generational process) and we will probably not change our attitudes fast enough to counter the environmental problems that we are causing. |
People like Malthus were saying the exact same sort of thing hundreds of years ago. They were proven wrong, just as you will be if you think the environment is currently on the verge of collapse...
| Quote: |
| But whats worse is when such people pretend that the environment is absolutely fine and that it can suffer any amount of abuse without adverse consequences. That is just foolish bravado borne out of ignorance. |
The environment is perfectly fine in most parts of the world. The adverse consequences you speak of are not forthcoming. Life carries on as usual.
| Quote: |
| Actually environmentalism, the thinking of those who care about the health of our natural world does not consist of a group of drug addled hippies, but thousands of scientists and conservationists who are busy researching and documenting our planet. |
Yeah, scientists funded by the global elite, who forge data and lie to the public, backing their fraud up by patting each other on the back (so-called "peer review") and ostracize/bully anyone who dares disagree with them. In fact anyone who doesn't tow the line will probably lose their job and their publications will not even see the light of day in the mainstream media (or if they do the writers will be branded crackpots).
But nevermind, what we really need is for Al Gore to put out another movie telling us how screwed we all are if we don't pay carbon taxes to him (so he can buy a few more ocean front mansions and keep flying around in his private jets). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Taking care of yourself and your family and trying to increase your living standard is anything but selfish. It is natural and good. As for other species going extinct, it happens all the time (and happened long, long before humans were around). Sacrificing our standard of living, and that of our children, just to save a few trees or whales (or micro-organisms that have nothing to do with us) is a despicable anti-human idea. |
Since when is improving the health of one's natural environment anti-human?  I'm afraid you have your thinking cap on backwards. A cleaner, more abundant natural world is in our better interest, and your notion that only a few trees can be saved with some policy adjustments and that micro-organisms have nothing to do with us (on the micro level it's pretty hard to select which ones survive bad envronmental policy, so all of them concern us), just says it all, really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend Lee Ghost
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Can we stop the fear tactics? They are not helping. |
Except that it is not mere fear mongering. I recall that you also initially did not believe that Fukushima was such a big deal.
And what about the collection of scientists that is the International Program on the State of the Ocean? Are they fear mongerers, too?
Ocean presents symptoms of major mass extinctions
22.06.2011
| Quote: |
| Under international study, marine species are at risk of entering a phase of unprecedented extinction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stout wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Taking care of yourself and your family and trying to increase your living standard is anything but selfish. It is natural and good. As for other species going extinct, it happens all the time (and happened long, long before humans were around). Sacrificing our standard of living, and that of our children, just to save a few trees or whales (or micro-organisms that have nothing to do with us) is a despicable anti-human idea. |
Since when is improving the health of one's natural environment anti-human? I'm afraid you have your thinking cap on backwards. A cleaner, more abundant natural world is in our better interest, and your notion that only a few trees can be saved with some policy adjustments and that micro-organisms have nothing to do with us (on the micro level it's pretty hard to select which ones survive bad envronmental policy, so all of them concern us), just says it all, really. |
What's with the straw man? I never said "improving the health of one's natural environment is anti-human". Enough with the nonsense already. what I said was that sacrificing the standard of living of you and your family, and of society in general, just to stop impacting the environment (which the Gaia-worshippers see as a pristine jewel, under attack by the filthy, cancerous scourge that is humanity, at least in their eyes) is anti-human. Saying that I need to stop traveling and only bathe twice a week to save the earth is a barbaric notion, but one that many environmentalists would no doubt advocate. Above all, imposing a carbon tax (basically a tax on life itself) so that the bankers can utterly dominate our society and control every aspect of our lives is the epitome of evil. And yet doing it to save the earth is precisely the excuse they use. But of course they are exempt - people like Al Gore and Prince Charles get to fly around first class and live in extreme luxury, while lecturing the rest of us on curbing consumption.
People come first, the environment second. That is the only moral way. Beyond that, I'm all for having clean air, clean oceans, and an abundant ecosystem. I think the first step to improving the environment is to roll back the leviathan state - since socialist countries (including the US) are always the ones the pollute the worst. Monopolistic firms like GE in the US, and state-run firms in Russian and China are by far the worst. They are controlled and funded by the exact same elite (private bankers and their cronies in government mainly) that fund the environmentalist movement and lobby for carbon taxes (Al Gore's family fortune is from Occidental Petroleum, for example, so of course he's all for carbon taxes). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Can we stop the fear tactics? They are not helping. |
Except that it is not mere fear mongering. I recall that you also initially did not believe that Fukushima was such a big deal. |
How is that relevant? Do I have to resurrect all the stupid shit that you've said over the years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend Lee Ghost
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Can we stop the fear tactics? They are not helping. |
Except that it is not mere fear mongering. I recall that you also initially did not believe that Fukushima was such a big deal. |
How is that relevant? Do I have to resurrect all the stupid shit that you've said over the years? |
My, aren't we touchy!
It is relevant because you were also accusing me of fear-mongering then before coming around.
I am constantly being accused of that and conspiracy theories, but then I have always been vindicated when more facts have come out. I have probably been right about more things than anyone on here, Obama and Fukushima being just two examples. So if you can quote any of my "stupid shit," by all means, bring it.
And stop being so touchy. A lot of people pooh-poohed Fukushima at the beginning. At least you were convinced relatively early on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Can we stop the fear tactics? They are not helping. |
Except that it is not mere fear mongering. I recall that you also initially did not believe that Fukushima was such a big deal. |
How is that relevant? Do I have to resurrect all the stupid shit that you've said over the years? |
My, aren't we touchy!
It is relevant because you were also accusing me of fear-mongering then before coming around.
I am constantly being accused of that and conspiracy theories, but then I have always been vindicated when more facts have come out. I have probably been right about more things than anyone on here, Obama and Fukushima being just two examples. So if you can quote any of my "stupid shit," by all means, bring it.
And stop being so touchy. A lot of people pooh-poohed Fukushima at the beginning. At least you were convinced relatively early on. |
You have not "always" been vindicated.
There's a huge difference between this and Fukushima. Your claims about Fukushima were verifiable, and later confirmed. Statements about climate change concern events that will occur in the far future. Many of the claims that are being made are extremely speculative. But climate and weather are some of the most notoriously difficult things to predict.
Yes, there is fear-mongering occurring on this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend Lee Ghost
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Yes, there is fear-mongering occurring on this thread. |
So then that is an affirmative to my question
| Quote: |
| scientists that is the International Program on the State of the Ocean? Are they fear mongerers, too? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| sacrificing the standard of living of you and your family, and of society in general, just to stop impacting the environment is anti-human. |
Isn't it pro-human to protect our living place for future generations?
| Quote: |
| People come first, the environment second. That is the only moral way. |
People have been consistently "coming first" for the past two centuries and look at the mess. Our oceans are drastically overfished, whole coral reefs have suddenly died and the oceans are a vortex of discarded plastic garbage.
When has conservation of nature ever taken priority over spreading human settlement? never. How many harmful big business development projects ever get cancelled in order to protect the environment? Very few.
The only time nature ever actually gets preserved is by accident- e.g. when humans are forced to evacuate a nuclear dead-zone like chernobyl/ fukushima, or create a demilitarised zone.
| Quote: |
| Above all, imposing a carbon tax (basically a tax on life itself) so that the bankers can utterly dominate our society and control every aspect of our lives is the epitome of evil. |
I don't particularly like Al Gore either.
That does not mean that tigers are not in danger of extinction due to hunting, trapping, and human encroachment on their habitat.
The fact that a powerful elite might have commandeered environmentalist causes for political ends, does not mean that caring for the environment is bad. Don't confuse the two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| sacrificing the standard of living of you and your family, and of society in general, just to stop impacting the environment is anti-human. |
Isn't it pro-human to protect our living place for future generations? |
As long as it is done willingly, and not imposed from above by the government - then absolutely. Let's keep in mind that the biggest polluters are often state enterprises. In the US, the largest corporations are often exempt from government laws (or just bypass them through corruption), which leaves smaller less polluting companies behind. Decentralization of government power is probably the single most important factor in stopping major polluters (though this might not seem obvious at first, since most people are indoctrinated that the government is the only way to solve the problem through stricter regulation; when in fact the whole argument has been turned on its head).
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| People come first, the environment second. That is the only moral way. |
People have been consistently "coming first" for the past two centuries and look at the mess. Our oceans are drastically overfished, whole coral reefs have suddenly died and the oceans are a vortex of discarded plastic garbage. |
I disagree that people have been coming first. The elite come first. The control our debt-based monetary system, which is basically predicated on exponential growth (and rapacious resource waste and misallocation) and must be backed by the government to function. Government waste and central planning brings us things like suburban sprawl, massive industrial parks, nuclear weapons testing (and nuclear plants for that matter), and insanely over-budgeted militaries (the US military is the single biggest consuming entity of oil on earth, and kills many, many people to secure the flow of oil). A free market economy would be far more fair and balanced and far less polluting on average. Again, this may not seem obvious at first, but makes sense when you consider the biggest polluters are either state firms, or state backed monopolies/cartels.
| Quote: |
When has conservation of nature ever taken priority over spreading human settlement? never. How many harmful big business development projects ever get cancelled in order to protect the environment? Very few.
The only time nature ever actually gets preserved is by accident- e.g. when humans are forced to evacuate a nuclear dead-zone like chernobyl/ fukushima, or create a demilitarised zone. |
Big business developments don't get cancelled because that is not what the globalists have in mind. Their idea of environmentalism is shutting off resources to the poorest and creating artificial scarcity to drive up prices and lower output. Produce less and earn more. It's the monopoly system, and it only works with government backing. You and I and the rest of the prols being stuck in giant concrete cities living like North Koreans is not going to save the environment. The big business cartels and their cronies in government will still pollute and consume like mad (they're exempt), but the rest of us will do with less, and pay more. That is the real agenda.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Above all, imposing a carbon tax (basically a tax on life itself) so that the bankers can utterly dominate our society and control every aspect of our lives is the epitome of evil. |
I don't particularly like Al Gore either.
That does not mean that tigers are not in danger of extinction due to hunting, trapping, and human encroachment on their habitat.
The fact that a powerful elite might have commandeered environmentalist causes for political ends, does not mean that caring for the environment is bad. Don't confuse the two. |
I'm not confusing the two. I've made it clear that I think there are real environmental issues. But I think the bigger issue is government control over society, and individual liberties. I strongly believe that decentralized government combined with strong personal liberties and private property rights would drastically reduce pollution. It wouldn't allow for the pristine, human-less, untouched earth that some radical environmentalists would like, but without a strong central government to back them we wouldn't have any ridiculous Fukushima meltdowns or massive BP oil spills either (since neither facilities would have been built in the first place without government backing and guarantees).. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Udo
Joined: 22 May 2011
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the ice caps are going to melt, why would the high priest of global warming buy a beachfront house. If nothing else I admire the ability of the former vice-president in parlaying(its probably not a word) his office into a cash machine.
Even if the marxists drive the U.S. into a "Green" fantasy, developing nations will have none of it. China is bringing "dirty" coal electric generation plants online faster than the U.S. can decommision theirs. They also burn their used private and commercial lubricants as fuel (used car, truck and bus oils-crankcase and transmission) which is already illegal in the U.S.
I'm all for solar power BTW. I have a Solar water heater for my modest home in the american SW.
I also understand that a significant portion of the U.S. have become a type of educated control freaks. They have limited knowledge of the hard sciences but are willing to sign on with the latest fashionable crisis if it has a cool movie or a pop culture backing. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has been orders of magnitude higher in the past, but the church of global warming will never acknowledge this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KRTV
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I just don't understand why anyone is surprised by climate change anymore.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
