Most of the main Green policies are terrifying

Scroll to see replies

Yet you're the one sitting using your first world computer eating plenty of food and consuming a lot of energy. You can't criticise humanity for their crimes against nature if you yourself are culpable

The only way not to be 'culpable' would living away from society. If you do that no one would listen. Sometimes you need to make a deal with the devil to do the godly thing.

Reply 441

Aph

Original post by 41b

Okay. Let's have a vote then. 85% of people would vote that I continue to stay here and 99.9% would vote that you get to leave. Goodbye, enjoy the monkey love on Alpha Centauri. :smile:

bye. I'm staying.

Reply 442

Chlorophile

Original post by temporary_user

What an absurd argument. It is impossible for someone to live in a sustainable manner in an institutionally unsustainable society. That does not mean that you can't demand societal change. I live in as sustainable a manner as I can practically live in given the constraints that I have but that doesn't mean I can work a sudden miracle. You can only work within the constraints that you're able to work - that doesn't mean that you can't demand for those constraints to be changed.

Reply 443

41b

Original post by Chlorophile

You are totally wrong on that count! Just think about the incredible opposition about mining or resource exploitation in the relatively unspoilt Arctic or Antarctic. Do you genuinely think that people are going to be happy with the totally unspoiled moon? I don't see any reason why anyone should be allowed to mine on the moon. It doesn't belong to anyone, nobody has that right to give away. We can't even look after our own planet, god save us if we start industrialising other celestial bodies.

The only people who care about that are greenpeace activists and their sex-devoid followers.

I bet a large plurality of people, when it comes down to it, would personally shoot and kill a polar bear if it meant they could get a new, top of the line computer or something they value equally as much.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 444

MrJAKEE

Original post by Chlorophile

It's an unspoiled environment that we have no right to trash just because we're incapable of looking after our own environment. You mentioned earlier that you support leaving Antarctica alone. Why? There's not a lot of life in the centre of the continent, in the dry valleys. Lots of minerals there too. So let's go screw that up too!

The moon is a pristine environment and the fact that "nothing lives there" doesn't give us the right to destroy it. On top of that intrinsic fact, it's also a scientific goldmine. If we start contaminating the moon, we could potentially lose a lot of incredibly valuable information.

But environments don't have unilateral rights Chlorophile..

I'd be perfectly happy on exploiting the middle of Antarctica if it didn't affect any of the animal population, but in reality, it would. Antarctica is also a bit different to the moon. I think people would care a lot more about what happens on Earth than what happens on other celestial bodies.

The fact that it's a scientific gold mine of course is something that should be considered, but it's not as if by starting mining in particular areas the whole moon is going to be screwed over. The moon is a very large place...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 445

Chlorophile

Original post by 41b

The only people who care about that are greenpeace activists and their sex-devoid followers.

I bet the vast majority of people, when it comes down to it, would personally shoot and kill a polar bear if it meant they could get a new, top of the line computer.

I don't really have anything to say to that other than I feel sorry for you. Your life must be pretty miserable if you genuinely don't care about anything.

Reply 446

KingStannis

Original post by Chlorophile

oh ffs, it's a lump of rock.

We should make sure it doesn't alter the tides or whatever, but seriously, it's a lump of rock. It's not like an alien rain forest or whatever.

Reply 447

Aph

Original post by MrJAKEE

So the Green Party want to legalise joining Al-Qaeda but won't let them talk about terrorism? Pfft
I agree that we should take more action on uniting society you'll find there will still be those that don't want to integrate.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, insisting terrorism is still a crime. It's similar to saying well a few members of the scouts killed a person as 'scout purists' so we will outlaw the scouts. We are blaming the many for crimes of a few.

Yes there will but their voices will grow weaker over time.

Reply 448

Chlorophile

Original post by MrJAKEE

Then why do we suddenly get the right to destroy it? The universe was just fine before humans came along. Why are you perfectly happy for your own species to operate in the exact same manner as a virus?

Reply 449

Chlorophile

Original post by KingStannis

oh ffs, it's a lump of rock.

We should make sure it doesn't alter the tides or whatever, but seriously, it's a lump of rock. It's not like an alien rain forest or whatever.

Do you have any idea of the scientific value of the moon? Any idea whatsoever?

Reply 450

Jammy Duel

Original post by Chlorophile

The moon is a completely pristine environment.

of death!

Reply 451

Chlorophile

Original post by Jammy Duel

of death!

What?

Reply 452

KingStannis

Original post by Chlorophile

Do you have any idea of the scientific value of the moon? Any idea whatsoever?

I'm sure you're going to inform me.

Reply 453

MrJAKEE

Original post by Chlorophile

Destroying it would imply it's utter obliteration.. In reality mining would only affect particular small areas. The universe 99.999999999% of the time is still fine without humans lol. And to say that humans are not like a virus is delusional, we feed of the land, we use the land, we all have needs and they have to be delivered.

On the side, I also have a question, would you support then Margaret Thatchers closing of the mines for environmental reasons and for ruining landscape?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 454

KingStannis

Original post by Jammy Duel

of death!

Well, technically of non life. Death implies there are loads of dead moon aliens on it or something.

Reply 455

Chlorophile

Original post by KingStannis

I'm sure you're going to inform me.

On top of the fact that we've barely even explored the Moon so there is almost certainly an incredibly amount of completely undiscovered things there, it's already geologically very important. The moon has been more or less unchanged since a billion years after the formation of the solar system so it gives an excellent and (relatively) accessible insight into the conditions that were around during the earlier years of the solar system. The small number of samples we have managed to collect from the moon have already given us an incredible amount of information but there is still a lot that we don't understand. One area of particular interest is the formation of the moon which is still a partially unresolved area of science, something that relies on the very careful measurement of stable isotope ratios in lunar material. Any kind of industrial activity on the moon could very well have a moon-wide chemical effect and make measurements like these impossible. The level of precision required for these experiments is immense.

Original post by MrJAKEE

"Utter obliteration" isn't far off. You don't have to literally physically defile the entire surface to destroy it. The whole value of the moon is that it's an absolutely ancient remnant from the early days of the solar system that has been untouched near then. Even if you've got a minor level of activity on it, you've still made that status irrelevant. A wilderness stops being a wilderness if you build on it, regardless if it's a city or a hamlet.

And yes, I'd support closing the coalmines. What I don't support is not creating any other kind of business for them to go into. What she did was terrible - closing coalmines is all well and good, but leaving people with no kind of business to go into is not.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 456

Jammy Duel

Original post by KingStannis

Well, technically of non life. Death implies there are loads of dead moon aliens on it or something.

Well, it was more going there without protection would kill you pretty fast :tongue:

Reply 457

41b

Original post by Chlorophile

I don't really have anything to say to that other than I feel sorry for you. Your life must be pretty miserable if you genuinely don't care about anything.

A human female pleasured me recently, and another wants to marry me. Can you say the same?

Average people would be a lot happier if they stopped trying to fix the world. There are already really smart people coming up with solutions vastly superior in scope and solution-power than the hairbrained ideas treehuggers come up with.

The green manifesto comes across exactly like that. The basic income will become an inevitability, when automation renders human labour irrelevant. But we're at least twenty years off from that. Before we get to the point where we can afford something like that, it is silly to argue for it.

Mining the moon would result in humanity literally transcending existence as we know it. And you're against it because of what grounds. What? We don't have a right to do what? What does that even mean? Who has the right to do anything? The universe is not governed by rights, but by power. Whoever can take, takes. There is no other law, no universal council that sits in the stars dictating what is just and unjust. Justice itself is a ridiculous idea but we've used it as humans to allow a functioning and productive society.

People who live in this justice-utopia don't live in the real world. The only law of existence is survival, and whatever guarantees survival will always succeed over what doesn't. When it comes to helium 3 mined on the moon, whoever is stupid enough not to do it will be colonised, dominated and killed. Would it be better for 2/3 of the world to be slaughtered or exploited because they followed green policies while the other 1/3 were smart enough to take what was ripe for the taking, and empower themselves as a result?

Really, think through the consequences of what you are arguing for. The people who would suffer most from environmentalist policies are the poor in the beautiful nirvana unindustrialised hellholes you want to return most of the world to. Nature is amazing, but nature is not conducive to human survival.

Reply 458

MrJAKEE

Original post by Aph

But I can assure you the public aren't scared about what a few scouts have done. They are more scared about a militant extremist blowing up a airplane with them in it or killing people in a rampage. It's the large amount of people they affect and obscenity of these crimes that is the scary part. I still don't see how legalising to join the organisation and then monitoring it will help in any way in stopping them. If anything, if there were plans that found people & monitored & prevented by the means of being in the organisation I'm sure it would lose trust in many extremists and they would do even more heinous crimes (furthering the disintegration with them in society).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 459

Jammy Duel

Original post by 41b

The green manifesto comes across exactly like that. The basic income will become an inevitability, when automation renders human labour irrelevant. But we're at least twenty years off from that. Before we get to the point where we can afford something like that, it is silly to argue for it.