"Humans destroyed the planet". Really? No.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Western media often portrays the climate catastrophe as a "human-made" event - as in, all humans are equally responsible for it.
Sharing the blame is easy to do. But is that justifiable?
Europeans were the ones who began industrialisation, and set the ball rolling on the disasters it has caused. That is beyond dispute.
Europeans spread industrialisation through massive and brutal colonisation and empire-building. Formerly tribal societies - with no carbon footprint - were violently yanked out of their traditional ways of life, and forced into modern carbon-churning systems mirroring Europe's. The fossil fuels from the conquered tribes' lands were extracted by Europeans at gunpoint, and burnt in the hellfires of Europe's mills and factories.
The native tribes across the world were largely in tune with nature, in a fragile equilibrium with their environments. Europeans introduced the concepts of mass production and reductionist scientific thinking, and the very concept of being in tune with nature was suddenly thrown out of the window worldwide.
Is this really a "man-made" catastrophe? Or is it a Europe-made catastrophe?
https://twitter.com/queersocialism/status/1164679287951233025
Sharing the blame is easy to do. But is that justifiable?
Europeans were the ones who began industrialisation, and set the ball rolling on the disasters it has caused. That is beyond dispute.
Europeans spread industrialisation through massive and brutal colonisation and empire-building. Formerly tribal societies - with no carbon footprint - were violently yanked out of their traditional ways of life, and forced into modern carbon-churning systems mirroring Europe's. The fossil fuels from the conquered tribes' lands were extracted by Europeans at gunpoint, and burnt in the hellfires of Europe's mills and factories.
The native tribes across the world were largely in tune with nature, in a fragile equilibrium with their environments. Europeans introduced the concepts of mass production and reductionist scientific thinking, and the very concept of being in tune with nature was suddenly thrown out of the window worldwide.
Is this really a "man-made" catastrophe? Or is it a Europe-made catastrophe?
https://twitter.com/queersocialism/status/1164679287951233025
"The native tribes across the world were largely in tune with nature, in a fragile equilibrium with their environments. Europeans introduced the concepts of mass production and reductionist scientific thinking, and the very concept of being in tune with nature was suddenly thrown out of the window worldwide."
The native tribes across Europe were largely in tune with nature, until civilisation was introduced to them.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by 999tigger
It wontg be just humans will get wiped out that is all. I suppose lots of land animals as well.
Can you clarify how humans will be wiped out? Or at least folk in the UK or Northern Europe.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Western media often portrays the climate catastrophe as a "human-made" event - as in, all humans are equally responsible for it.
Sharing the blame is easy to do. But is that justifiable?
Europeans were the ones who began industrialisation, and set the ball rolling on the disasters it has caused. That is beyond dispute.
Europeans spread industrialisation through massive and brutal colonisation and empire-building. Formerly tribal societies - with no carbon footprint - were violently yanked out of their traditional ways of life, and forced into modern carbon-churning systems mirroring Europe's. The fossil fuels from the conquered tribes' lands were extracted by Europeans at gunpoint, and burnt in the hellfires of Europe's mills and factories.
The native tribes across the world were largely in tune with nature, in a fragile equilibrium with their environments. Europeans introduced the concepts of mass production and reductionist scientific thinking, and the very concept of being in tune with nature was suddenly thrown out of the window worldwide.
Is this really a "man-made" catastrophe? Or is it a Europe-made catastrophe?
https://twitter.com/queersocialism/status/1164679287951233025
Sharing the blame is easy to do. But is that justifiable?
Europeans were the ones who began industrialisation, and set the ball rolling on the disasters it has caused. That is beyond dispute.
Europeans spread industrialisation through massive and brutal colonisation and empire-building. Formerly tribal societies - with no carbon footprint - were violently yanked out of their traditional ways of life, and forced into modern carbon-churning systems mirroring Europe's. The fossil fuels from the conquered tribes' lands were extracted by Europeans at gunpoint, and burnt in the hellfires of Europe's mills and factories.
The native tribes across the world were largely in tune with nature, in a fragile equilibrium with their environments. Europeans introduced the concepts of mass production and reductionist scientific thinking, and the very concept of being in tune with nature was suddenly thrown out of the window worldwide.
Is this really a "man-made" catastrophe? Or is it a Europe-made catastrophe?
https://twitter.com/queersocialism/status/1164679287951233025
Humans have always been a dominating presence wheever they went. All the megafauna goes extinct as soon as humans arrive on the scene.
You are also missing the a crucial step on the noble savage to corrupted capitalist subject arc, that of agriculture. In this narrative it's agriculture that is the cause of our fall from grace, introducing inequality, oppressive devision of labour, sexism, enviromental destruction.
And if you want to get all marxist about it capitalism offers an escape route to communism. Or as it may well turn out, enviromental collapse -___-
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Humans have always been a dominating presence wheever they went. All the megafauna goes extinct as soon as humans arrive on the scene.
You are also missing the a crucial step on the noble savage to corrupted capitalist subject arc, that of agriculture. In this narrative it's agriculture that is the cause of our fall from grace, introducing inequality, oppressive devision of labour, sexism, enviromental destruction.
And if you want to get all marxist about it capitalism offers an escape route to communism. Or as it may well turn out, enviromental collapse -___-
You are also missing the a crucial step on the noble savage to corrupted capitalist subject arc, that of agriculture. In this narrative it's agriculture that is the cause of our fall from grace, introducing inequality, oppressive devision of labour, sexism, enviromental destruction.
And if you want to get all marxist about it capitalism offers an escape route to communism. Or as it may well turn out, enviromental collapse -___-
Do you really believe that apocalyptic environmental collapse is likely. Especially at northern latitudes like the UK.
This argument is a huge reason some industrialising countries are dismissive of climate change policies as they see Europeans who recklessly industralised/colonised for economic growth and want to do the same with regards to ensuring it does not impede growth.
Original post by BlueIndigoViolet
This argument is a huge reason some industrialising countries are dismissive of climate change policies as they see Europeans who recklessly industralised/colonised for economic growth and want to do the same with regards to ensuring it does not impede growth.
I personally see one of the problems being alarmism and over-ambition. Asking India to take measures that might cost it £100bn is pretty unreasonable when they struggle to properly House their population.
It seems to me that setting these nations cheaper but important goals like replacing the long life plastic they use within x years or stopping them using the sea as a rubbish dump would be more likely to get them to take steps forward.
Original post by Rakas21
I personally see one of the problems being alarmism and over-ambition. Asking India to take measures that might cost it £100bn is pretty unreasonable when they struggle to properly House their population.
It seems to me that setting these nations cheaper but important goals like replacing the long life plastic they use within x years or stopping them using the sea as a rubbish dump would be more likely to get them to take steps forward.
It seems to me that setting these nations cheaper but important goals like replacing the long life plastic they use within x years or stopping them using the sea as a rubbish dump would be more likely to get them to take steps forward.
It's not alarmism to quote peer reviewed science.Thats just stating facts.India is probably going to be one of the most effected so it's in it's own best interests to fight climate change.Plus you say that but they can still afford a space program.And plastic and rubbish are different issues to climate change so that wouldn't really help tbh.
Original post by James23121
It's not alarmism to quote peer reviewed science.Thats just stating facts.India is probably going to be one of the most effected so it's in it's own best interests to fight climate change.Plus you say that but they can still afford a space program.And plastic and rubbish are different issues to climate change so that wouldn't really help tbh.
Climate change is certainly occurring and influenced by man, I do not oppose that view.
There is a massive amount of alarmism though, you have a poster in this thread suggesting death or starvation.
Original post by Rakas21
Climate change is certainly occurring and influenced by man, I do not oppose that view.
There is a massive amount of alarmism though, you have a poster in this thread suggesting death or starvation.
There is a massive amount of alarmism though, you have a poster in this thread suggesting death or starvation.
Well why not? Death could certainly occur.You forget we live in a global society and ecosystem.If things go badly for one part of the world then it could lead to negative consequences here.As just one example there are lifeforms in the sea which produce 50% of all oxygen.Apparently they die if you raise the temperature 6 degrees.If they die it wouldn't be good for us.
If anything there is not enough alarmism.The government's of the world are very complacent on this issue.But the truth is that we are creating unprecedented conditions on this planet.The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at 400ppm which hasn't been seen in 3 million years.The last time carbon dioxide levels were this high there were no humans on the planet.Its anybody's guess what will happen to our civilisation.The thing is we can't just turn it off.We can't get to five degrees warming and then decide " oh this was a bad idea".Once its done it's going to be that way for thousands of years.Which seems like a rather large risk to take.
Original post by Rakas21
Do you really believe that apocalyptic environmental collapse is likely. Especially at northern latitudes like the UK.
Nothing escapes entropy. Something eventually is going to do us in. No reason why it couldn't be something like this bofore the next asteroid hits. At the least it could lower human livind standards massivly.
There are a lot of really bad stages before the stage of humanity going extinct. There can still be humans but with a reversal to pre industrial living standards and population size. That would be horrendouse in terms of human mortality. It gets bad before northern lattitudes get affected, and the anxiety of northern populations will get over migration from the humans moving from the global south is fertile ground for eco fascism and holocausts.
(edited 4 years ago)
You call colonisation and genocide a "quest to advance"?
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Western media often portrays the climate catastrophe as a "human-made" event - as in, all humans are equally responsible for it.
Sharing the blame is easy to do. But is that justifiable?
Europeans were the ones who began industrialisation, and set the ball rolling on the disasters it has caused. That is beyond dispute.
Europeans spread industrialisation through massive and brutal colonisation and empire-building. Formerly tribal societies - with no carbon footprint - were violently yanked out of their traditional ways of life, and forced into modern carbon-churning systems mirroring Europe's. The fossil fuels from the conquered tribes' lands were extracted by Europeans at gunpoint, and burnt in the hellfires of Europe's mills and factories.
The native tribes across the world were largely in tune with nature, in a fragile equilibrium with their environments. Europeans introduced the concepts of mass production and reductionist scientific thinking, and the very concept of being in tune with nature was suddenly thrown out of the window worldwide.
Is this really a "man-made" catastrophe? Or is it a Europe-made catastrophe?
https://twitter.com/queersocialism/status/1164679287951233025
Sharing the blame is easy to do. But is that justifiable?
Europeans were the ones who began industrialisation, and set the ball rolling on the disasters it has caused. That is beyond dispute.
Europeans spread industrialisation through massive and brutal colonisation and empire-building. Formerly tribal societies - with no carbon footprint - were violently yanked out of their traditional ways of life, and forced into modern carbon-churning systems mirroring Europe's. The fossil fuels from the conquered tribes' lands were extracted by Europeans at gunpoint, and burnt in the hellfires of Europe's mills and factories.
The native tribes across the world were largely in tune with nature, in a fragile equilibrium with their environments. Europeans introduced the concepts of mass production and reductionist scientific thinking, and the very concept of being in tune with nature was suddenly thrown out of the window worldwide.
Is this really a "man-made" catastrophe? Or is it a Europe-made catastrophe?
https://twitter.com/queersocialism/status/1164679287951233025
The Chinese invented gunpowder, so by the same logic, the Chinese can be blamed for all mass shootings and terrorist bombings....
Original post by Stalin
The native tribes across Europe were largely in tune with nature, until civilisation was introduced to them.
So we have yet another answer to the question What have the Romans done for us? They brought civilisation and thereby ultimately caused climate change. Shocking!
The Romans have truly done for us.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Western media often portrays the climate catastrophe as a "human-made" event - as in, all humans are equally responsible for it.
If Europeans truly had spread industrialisation, climate change would be far more advanced, South America would be wealthy and there would be no trees in Africa.
It seems to me this is all about cake. You want to hold onto the cake of European oppression of the undeveloped and unindustrialised colonies while bemoaning that eating of it has been spoiled by the Europeans having industrialised their colonies, all the while ignoring the steaming great pie in the oven that is never-colonised, enormous and extremely inventive China freely and voluntarily industrialising itself with fossil fuels to the fore in a post-colonial world.
Another IdentityPenguin triumph of logic!
Original post by AngeryPenguin
You call colonisation and genocide a "quest to advance"?
Only you would interpret my statement that way
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Western media often portrays the climate catastrophe as a "human-made" event - as in, all humans are equally responsible for it.
Sharing the blame is easy to do. But is that justifiable?
Europeans were the ones who began industrialisation, and set the ball rolling on the disasters it has caused. That is beyond dispute.
Europeans spread industrialisation through massive and brutal colonisation and empire-building. Formerly tribal societies - with no carbon footprint - were violently yanked out of their traditional ways of life, and forced into modern carbon-churning systems mirroring Europe's. The fossil fuels from the conquered tribes' lands were extracted by Europeans at gunpoint, and burnt in the hellfires of Europe's mills and factories.
The native tribes across the world were largely in tune with nature, in a fragile equilibrium with their environments. Europeans introduced the concepts of mass production and reductionist scientific thinking, and the very concept of being in tune with nature was suddenly thrown out of the window worldwide.
Is this really a "man-made" catastrophe? Or is it a Europe-made catastrophe?
https://twitter.com/queersocialism/status/1164679287951233025
Sharing the blame is easy to do. But is that justifiable?
Europeans were the ones who began industrialisation, and set the ball rolling on the disasters it has caused. That is beyond dispute.
Europeans spread industrialisation through massive and brutal colonisation and empire-building. Formerly tribal societies - with no carbon footprint - were violently yanked out of their traditional ways of life, and forced into modern carbon-churning systems mirroring Europe's. The fossil fuels from the conquered tribes' lands were extracted by Europeans at gunpoint, and burnt in the hellfires of Europe's mills and factories.
The native tribes across the world were largely in tune with nature, in a fragile equilibrium with their environments. Europeans introduced the concepts of mass production and reductionist scientific thinking, and the very concept of being in tune with nature was suddenly thrown out of the window worldwide.
Is this really a "man-made" catastrophe? Or is it a Europe-made catastrophe?
https://twitter.com/queersocialism/status/1164679287951233025
darn it! Why weren't we white devils cannibalising each other like to Aztecs or butchering albino children for witchcraft like the Kangz in Africa?! Before us, no one was having wars with each other, were they? Good thing everyone else was peaceful! I'm just so ashamed of my people for discovering things like electricity, maritime navigation techniques, or making beautifully built cities like Paris and Rome. Truly the European spirit of discovery is something to be ashamed of.
Africans NEVER enslaved each other. There were NEVER genocides carried out by Middle Easterners against Jews or kidnappings of Slavic women. I'm sure it was just whites hun.
1)The living standard in Europe sucked for the poor before industrialisation provided opportunity. Is it selfish to want a better standard of living for your people? Would you rather there were less job opportunities in the world and many people would still be solely reliant on crop supply to avoid famine? People in the middle class are the most loud about climate change because they can afford to be. Would you rather people died earlier and lived like serfs?
2)The collosal impact of fossil fuels and industrialisation changed the European job sector, as we became dependent on it for our jobs and living. Whilst we were heavily polluting, we were desperate for a better way of life, as poverty and disease were rampant in Britain at the time of industrialisation. Putting it down was never an option at the time. Now we have the option, many in our countries are the most dedicated to reducing carbon footprint.
3)The people that went on those ships to Africa were a minority of Europeans. Do you think that you would punish the whole school because the staff was unfair? Every race has the capability to be cruel. Europeans just had the same capabilities for cruelty but more technological advancements. Therefore, they were more successful in unfair actions.Furthermore, fossil fuels weren't discovered with the intention to harm. They were used to improve living standards.
4)Now Middle Eastern countries and Asian countries contribute so much in terms of pollution, and it's illogical to lump it all on Europeans. There was a choice made.
a Chinese coal company produced 14% of cumulative greenhouse gases from 1988 to 2015. That is, by proportion, more than any other company. They are closely followed by a Saudi oil company.
China chose to use fossil fuels. They were also in a time of great change and great need, the same as us. It was never picked up by anyone to hurt others, but to give hope and opportunities to themselves.
Europeans have improved the living standard for many, partially due to industrialisation. There is a price, that's true, but we were never pure evildoers. It is our job, EVERYONE'S job, to clean up our acts. Playing the blame game is far less productive than taking action. Instead of "who's to blame", we need to think "how can we change things?". These people on Twitter argue by yelling "facts" or "tea sis" or spamming trendy gifs.
People on Twitter have a fixation on getting people to apologise, and be sorry for their mistakes, or sins of people they aren't even related to but share a race with. If it's big or small, it doesn't matter. No one appointed this mob. But they are the embodiment of peer pressure, of social witch hunts and ostracism. It makes them feel important. They're a self righteous bunch and need to feel a sense of moral superiority. It's very childlike. Twitter encourages mob mentality and for the sake of free thought and free speech, we must not follow in the footsteps of these absolute children.
Original post by momgetthecamera!
Africans NEVER enslaved each other.
And, of course, Europeans were never themselves enslaved, least of all by North Africans.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
The native tribes across the world were largely in tune with nature, in a fragile equilibrium with their environments. Europeans introduced the concepts of mass production and reductionist scientific thinking, and the very concept of being in tune with nature was suddenly thrown out of the window worldwide.
They were also one unpredictable season away from starvation and death, had levels of infant (and maternal) mortality that we could not dream of today, died of easily treatable diseases, lived lives of chronic pain through easily treatable conditions, were hungry, fearful and unhappy. This 'noble savage' stereotype is as much a feature of imperialism as building railways. The world was no Garden of Eden before civilisation, it was dirty, unpleasant and frightening.
Industrialisation has made our lives immeasurably better in almost every way. If you're seriously going to contend that the effects of man-made climate change somehow offset that, then I think you're talking nonsense. Carbon emissions are a scientifically valid issue, this being "in tune with nature" is New Age hippy clap-trap.
Let's not regret billions of people being lifted out of the most impoverished and unpleasant living conditions imaginable. Because you'll seldom find a single person who really wants to go back to that.
Original post by L i b
Because you'll seldom find a single person who really wants to go back to that.
Ironically, Identitypenguin (who frequently seems to rail against historical slavery and seeks to get us all to feel guilty about it) hankers after a time when half the population in England had a similar status. But they were more in harmony with the seasons and the land than we are, so they must have been very happy!
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
LSE anthropology and law 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2850
Last reply 4 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 7 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official: Hull York Medical School A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 11 minutes ago
Lloyds Banking Group 2024 Summer InternshipLast reply 13 minutes ago
Official: University of Leicester A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 14 minutes ago
EXTRA AND SUPER SUPER-CURRICULARSS- pls help :) UNILast reply 14 minutes ago
LSE Undergraduate Politics and IR 2024Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 18 minutes ago
Anyone else get an offer for a Rolls Royce degree apprenticeship in Derby (2024)?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
