Stupid World

[TheDemonLord]

Neither you or me are at either end of environmentalism, rather we are both somewhere in the middle (approx), but you expect me to live like a wild animal because I put forward views on how to make the environment better, inferring that because you don't express the same views then you should be actively destroying it. You can't have it both ways, your view is just as hypocritical as mine.

It's not that you put forward views to make the Environment better.

It's two-fold:

Firstly that you seem fine with trampling on the rights of others in order to make it better - which is why I continually challenge you to have your rights trampled at the behest of someone else.

Secondly that you cannot place a limit on how far it should go - which is why I continually challenge you to live like a Wild Animal.

If you want to criticise Consumerism in the manner that you do, then you must accept that things you like to own (like Motorbikes) are equally as luxurious and unnecessary extravagances as whatever it is you critique.

Add in for bonus points that every system that is based upon the talking points you espoused devolved into the hellscapes that I critique you on.

So, I'll ask you again: What is the limit to Environmentalism? When is it enough?

As for your final retort - the problem you have there is that I've expressed numerous views in support of various things that could be considered 'Green', the difference is that I like my environmentalism to be pragmatic approaches to solvable problems, as opposed to hysterical predictions to browbeat others into submission.

[Woodman]

It's not that you put forward views to make the Environment better.

It's two-fold:

Firstly that you seem fine with trampling on the rights of others in order to make it better - which is why I continually challenge you to have your rights trampled at the behest of someone else.

Secondly that you cannot place a limit on how far it should go - which is why I continually challenge you to live like a Wild Animal.

If you want to criticise Consumerism in the manner that you do, then you must accept that things you like to own (like Motorbikes) are equally as luxurious and unnecessary extravagances as whatever it is you critique.

Add in for bonus points that every system that is based upon the talking points you espoused devolved into the hellscapes that I critique you on.

So, I'll ask you again: What is the limit to Environmentalism? When is it enough?

As for your final retort - the problem you have there is that I've expressed numerous views in support of various things that could be considered 'Green', the difference is that I like my environmentalism to be pragmatic approaches to solvable problems, as opposed to hysterical predictions to browbeat others into submission.

You do realise that the environment is where we all live? What's wrong g with looking after it?

[TheDemonLord]

You do realise that the environment is where we all live? What's wrong g with looking after it?

Interesting that you still refuse to set a limitation on it.

Let me try another way: Your very existence has an impact on the environment. You change it, interact with it, destroy it etc.

Thus, you cannot exist without harming the Environment in some way.

Following on from that, we can have the discussion as to whether any harm is permanent to the environment, what is an acceptable amount of impact and over what time period - but this is what you refuse to do.

Hence why I ridicule your statements by taking them to their extremes, because you don't, or more specifically refuse to, define a limit.

But, by all means - I'll still hear you if you want to reconsider and actually put in some limits. Then we can discuss those, the merits of them and perhaps most interestingly, what some of the unintended consequences may be of those ideas.

[Woodman]

Interesting that you still refuse to set a limitation on it.

Let me try another way: Your very existence has an impact on the environment. You change it, interact with it, destroy it etc.

Thus, you cannot exist without harming the Environment in some way.

Following on from that, we can have the discussion as to whether any harm is permanent to the environment, what is an acceptable amount of impact and over what time period - but this is what you refuse to do.

Hence why I ridicule your statements by taking them to their extremes, because you don't, or more specifically refuse to, define a limit.

But, by all means - I'll still hear you if you want to reconsider and actually put in some limits. Then we can discuss those, the merits of them and perhaps most interestingly, what some of the unintended consequences may be of those ideas.

I thought about windi g you up, but then thought about this limit thing, and it has merit, but the answer is that I have no idea. The zero carbon by 2050 by NZ is not enough, in fact nobody is doing enough. Our lifestyle is doomed. Possibly human race is heading for extinction? Not particularly bothered to be fair.

[TheDemonLord]

I thought about windi g you up, but then thought about this limit thing, and it has merit, but the answer is that I have no idea.

That's my problem with the Green advocacy. Even if I agree there's a Merit to your idea, you've not thought it through to any conclusion.

The zero carbon by 2050 by NZ is not enough, in fact nobody is doing enough. Our lifestyle is doomed. Possibly human race is heading for extinction? Not particularly bothered to be fair.

..."Not enough"...
..."Never enough"...
..."Not doing enough"...

Do you see what I might be very concerned and very vigilant of there not being a limit?

I don't think our Lifestyle is doomed, there's been naysayers at every point in Human History, I see the current crop of Climate Crisis cretins as a continuation of this Capitulation (heh.).

But if it is, and we are heading for extinction, and you aren't particularly bothered - why are you disagreeing with me when I made the above suggestions to you?

[oldrider]

You do realise that the environment is where we all live? What's wrong g with looking after it?

Very true that!.

Well "they" could start by stopping their silly wars that destroy everything and everyone all around the world for no valid reason other than balancing international banking! -

[mashman]

I thought about windi g you up, but then thought about this limit thing, and it has merit, but the answer is that I have no idea. The zero carbon by 2050 by NZ is not enough, in fact nobody is doing enough. Our lifestyle is doomed. Possibly human race is heading for extinction? Not particularly bothered to be fair.

The limits have been set and they have all been smashed through. Kate Raworths stuff proves that beyond the shadow of a doubt. Earth Overshoot is that which should be setting the limits i.e. the data sets the limits. Jeremy Rifkins work also acknowledges this, as well as seeing what comes next as the forerunner to the sharing economy, where Zero Marginal Cost all but renders money moot. The limits are known and have been empirically defined by more than enough people. Earth Overshoot has set the global environmental limit. Collectively we use 0.7 times more than we can reproduce in the same timeframe as we use it. Carbon 2050 isn't enough I agree, otherwise Kyoto would have worked or at the very least led to some form of stability. We are facing extinction, along with everything else on this planet. The interruption of maintenance/supply chains to any of the 450+ active nuclear reactors says so, with a hat tip to an unknown number of research reactors etc... The potential sources of interruption include social or economic collapse. Climate change is certainly up there in terms of the threat to food/water, which is important for people in the support supply chains. Wouldn't wanna run out of diesel in yer cooling towers machinery eh. And so on. All of these things are known and confirmed as more than plausible whether we fuck it up ourselves or nature does it for us and we simply weren't prepared for it.

Our lifestyle isn't doomed though. Where we cut out the shit that serves no life purpose so we're gonna be pretty close to having the lifestyle we currently have... better were you consider that bullshit jobs will be gone (massive energy saving alone), as people will be available to do something that A) isn't contributing to the waste of resource i.e. traveling to a job that serves no purpose
Your) will see them more likely to work closer to home and within their community than their current job is i.e. available to rebuild the village where the village is.

Who dictates what who should be doing and what they should be consuming? The individual does. If we are not able to be responsible enough to do what is necessary to address Earth Overshoot, then nothing else matters coz it is bye bye. Where we address Earth Overshoot shoot, so there will be no such thing as employer and employee, and people will outnumber jobs 1000:1. All you need is 1 in 1000 to do any given job for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, and all important functions will continue, as well as having more than enough cover. As such, where you have 2 in 1000 who are willing to learn what it takes to do any given job(s), so you have a human who works half as much. Where there are 7 people, so they can work 1 day each. And so on... People are going to outnumber jobs... it's almost as if it's possible to have more teachers and doctors and emergency services etc... lol

[austingtir]

^^

[TheDemonLord]

The limits have been set and they have all been smashed through. Kate Raworths stuff proves that beyond the shadow of a doubt. Earth Overshoot is that which should be setting the limits i.e. the data sets the limits. Jeremy Rifkins work also acknowledges this, as well as seeing what comes next as the forerunner to the sharing economy, where Zero Marginal Cost all but renders money moot. The limits are known and have been empirically defined by more than enough people. Earth Overshoot has set the global environmental limit. Collectively we use 0.7 times more than we can reproduce in the same timeframe as we use it. Carbon 2050 isn't enough I agree, otherwise Kyoto would have worked or at the very least led to some form of stability. We are facing extinction, along with everything else on this planet. The interruption of maintenance/supply chains to any of the 450+ active nuclear reactors says so, with a hat tip to an unknown number of research reactors etc... The potential sources of interruption include social or economic collapse. Climate change is certainly up there in terms of the threat to food/water, which is important for people in the support supply chains. Wouldn't wanna run out of diesel in yer cooling towers machinery eh. And so on. All of these things are known and confirmed as more than plausible whether we fuck it up ourselves or nature does it for us and we simply weren't prepared for it.

Our lifestyle isn't doomed though. Where we cut out the shit that serves no life purpose so we're gonna be pretty close to having the lifestyle we currently have... better were you consider that bullshit jobs will be gone (massive energy saving alone), as people will be available to do something that A) isn't contributing to the waste of resource i.e. traveling to a job that serves no purpose
Your) will see them more likely to work closer to home and within their community than their current job is i.e. available to rebuild the village where the village is.

Who dictates what who should be doing and what they should be consuming? The individual does. If we are not able to be responsible enough to do what is necessary to address Earth Overshoot, then nothing else matters coz it is bye bye. Where we address Earth Overshoot shoot, so there will be no such thing as employer and employee, and people will outnumber jobs 1000:1. All you need is 1 in 1000 to do any given job for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, and all important functions will continue, as well as having more than enough cover. As such, where you have 2 in 1000 who are willing to learn what it takes to do any given job(s), so you have a human who works half as much. Where there are 7 people, so they can work 1 day each. And so on... People are going to outnumber jobs... it's almost as if it's possible to have more teachers and doctors and emergency services etc... lol

And of course, you're the one that will usher in this Utopia.

Just like Stalin did.
Or Mao.
Or Pol Pot.
Or the Kims.

Not to mention the internal contradictions, suspect individuals and historical record of the predictions made by certain people.

[Woodman]

That's my problem with the Green advocacy. Even if I agree there's a Merit to your idea, you've not thought it through to any conclusion.



..."Not enough"...
..."Never enough"...
..."Not doing enough"...

Do you see what I might be very concerned and very vigilant of there not being a limit?

I don't think our Lifestyle is doomed, there's been naysayers at every point in Human History, I see the current crop of Climate Crisis cretins as a continuation of this Capitulation (heh.).

But if it is, and we are heading for extinction, and you aren't particularly bothered - why are you disagreeing with me when I made the above suggestions to you?

If it's too hard, don't bother.. I hope I am wrong, but don't think so. Arguing round in circles will be our biggest fuck up.

[TheDemonLord]

If it's too hard, don't bother.. I hope I am wrong, but don't think so. Arguing round in circles will be our biggest fuck up.

It's not that it's too hard, it's just that you have to accept some damage to the Environment and for the average Environmentalist type person that is unacceptable. Hence my critique.

I'd be more than happy to place some limits, but then, I'm not the one saying that it's never enough.

Well take solace in this - the last 100 years of long-term Climate predictions have been hopelessly wrong.

And we've been arguing around in Circles since Ancient Greece - haven't done too badly... I hear the Internet is pretty cool...

[Woodman]

And we've been arguing around in Circles since Ancient Greece - haven't done too badly......

We've done pretty shit actually.

[TheDemonLord]

We've done pretty shit actually.

By what Metric?

We've eradicated Small Pox in the wild - that was the cause of Death of some 500 Million people in the 20th Century.
We've double the life expectancy in the west in the last 100 years.
We are (thanks entirely to Capitalism) lifting more people out of absolute poverty by almost double the best estimate of the UN.

I could go on.

This is not to say we've not done some pretty shitty things too, because there have been heaps of those.

[Woodman]

By what Metric?

We've eradicated Small Pox in the wild - that was the cause of Death of some 500 Million people in the 20th Century.
We've double the life expectancy in the west in the last 100 years.
We are (thanks entirely to Capitalism) lifting more people out of absolute poverty by almost double the best estimate of the UN.

I could go on.

This is not to say we've not done some pretty shitty things too, because there have been heaps of those.

We have basically destroyed ourselves and pretty much every other species and ecosystem in a short period of time. Humans think we are so clever because we can make shit, whereas in actual fact our intelligence and superiority complex renders us the stupidest life form ever to inhabit this planet.

[TheDemonLord]

We have basically destroyed ourselves and pretty much every other species and ecosystem in a short period of time.

Even if I were to agree with that premise (I don't) this is no better than every other species that has been wiped out by Nature itself, in fact, Nature's track record of Eradicating species is far greater than ours. But if you are right, Life will go on, something will come along after us, so your point of 'Destroyed' is wrong.

Humans think we are so clever because we can make shit, whereas in actual fact our intelligence and superiority complex renders us the stupidest life form ever to inhabit this planet.

Yet, we are the only life form that has the potential to avert a Mass Extinction event.

So, based on your own Logic, we clearly ARE the cleverest.

But as I said, if you hate your own existence that much, feel free to loosen yourself from it.