Debate Topic: Environmentalism (Little Upsilon)

We have lost the first part of the thread.
It was started by FarmerBob.

I have copied this from the Desireless thread so we can discuss Miles points.

The Quotes are what I wrote on the Desireless thread.

Miles Prower (Kebir Blue)
Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 09:59 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Petra. Very much appreciated.

Nix, for a moment there I was almost convinced that you understood the point I was trying to make, either consciously or without realising it.

Bravo on expanding your horizons just a little bit.

But again, your narrow knowledge base seems to be letting you down in regards to the extrapolations you make, simply because you appear to be limiting yourself to one side of the argument.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
How much more pollution has man created over the past 50 years compaired to the millenium before do you think?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I refer you to the global dimming scenario.

What you take as the "destruction" of the natural world is simply yet another step in the fluid nature of the environment.

The idea that the environment is a static entity appears to be a mainstay in the argument most "environmentalists" put forwards. It is a very dangerous one in theory, and downright disastrous in practice. Nature is change. Life is change. Preventing life from adapting and evolving to fit the ever-changing environment would result in far greater catastrophe than anything we see in the present.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
It's also not just about CO2. It's about chopping down the rain forests, killing all the animals, polluting our seas, destroying the soil and the overall destruction of the Natural world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You put it all down to human activity, but as has been mentioned before there are numerous factors which have influenced many of the points you bring up - some natural. I would be more than happy to open that can of worms should you so wish. I believe you will find it very enlightening.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
As for the economy. Man does not have to be payed to come up with solutions. We don't need to swap money with aliens for the new technologys and materials. The ways and means are already here. The economy has nothing to do with it. It's due to the economy that all the solutions have been bought and shelved by the big companies.

We need to shoot ourselves in the foot to stop us from walking down the path of self destruction. For desire seems to control alot of people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You're missing the point here, mostly because you appear to be looking at the issue from the wrong side.

I'm not saying that people have to be paid to solve issues. What I am saying is that the single biggest innovator is the private sector. Without private investment important research into the green technologies that I assume you wish to see progressed to replace the more polluting ones would simply not exist.

A prime example being the likes of British Petrolleum or Royal Dutch Shell, two big private oil companies which have invested far more in green technologies than most governments.

Or the car company, Toyota, which have pioneered some of the first commercially viable hybrid and hydrogen cell vehicles.

The point I was making is simply that these companies - the ones which can be most readily assosciated with "dirty" industry are the ones who will pave the way to your green paradise.

Shoot them in the foot, if you will. But I would rather let them get on with their jobs and free us from this reliance upon a finite resource.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Would you put your kid on a bike for the first time without a helmet?
They might not fall off. And if they did, they might not even bang their head. But would you risk it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The point here is that if they fell off, the resultant head injury would be a more or less forgone conclusion, so yes, I would.

Applying this logic to the environmental issues you raise suggests to me that you would remove the proverbial helmet by stemming the single largest source of technological innovation, and thus remove the only means by which we could escape your doomsday scenario.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Do you know what will happen if the gulfstream fails due to the melting of the ice caps?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


May I suggest that you do a little research into paelioclimatology so that you actually understand what would happen if there were no gulf stream?

May I also suggest that you look into the major known factors in keeping the world wide ocean currents flowing, and the gulf stream's place within said system?

Also, turn off your DVD player. The Day After Tomorrow was terribly erroneous in several ways.

But rounding things off, I'll return to the core point of my argument: The single largest threat to life - human or otherwise - remains the natural environment of the earth itself. The processes are there to see, if you will only let go of the social guilt long enough to open your eyes.

--------------------------------------------------------

My information does'nt come from films. It comes from scientists and government bodies.
If you get your take from films, that will explain alot.

If there is no gulf stream in the Atlantic, Britain will have the same climate as Iceland.

And no. Human activity is becoming more of a problem than volcanos and astoroids. We are killing the fabric of life it's self.

Nix, how can you possibly be so convinced that the only way we can solve our environmental issues is by destroying all or most of our industry and lowing our consumption drastically?

Firstly, a disclaimer: Unlike alot of the people that argue with you, I'm not going to resort to insults or anything offensive. I have several things I would like to hear your opinion on. I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if I don't even remotely agree with it.

Before I get going, I should point out that I am a capitalism loving republican. BUT, the republican party generally takes a foolish and ignorant stance on environnmental issues. So it's very rarely that I agree with them in that area.

I feel it's ignorant to deny the fact that man-made CO2 emmissions have not had a negative effect on the environment. I agree that our current rates of pollution and enviornmental destruction can not be maintained for all eternity.

Note that I avoided the term consumption in that sentence. I believe that people can maintain a massive amount of consumption without negatively affecting the environment. All it requires is intelligent managment of the resources available to us. I look forward to hearing your counterarguement.

I think it takes an unbelievable amount of ignorance to deny that mankind has been responsible for a very large amount of environmental destruction. (PLEASE, nobody give me a smartass comment about how an asteroid or meteor hitting the earth would do far more damage; that goes without saying.)

Regardless of whether you believe CO2 emissions have caused the temperature of the earth to rise, it is undoubtably increasing the acidity of the oceans. That has a very negative effect on fish stocks and coral reefs. Look that up, there is definite proof of it. Sure, volcanic eruptions put CO2 and other types of gases and particulate matter into the air, but what makes you think people don't have a negligable effect on the makeup of our atmosphere? Contrary to what some people seem to think, the oceans don't just magically suck up greenhouse gases and make them disappear. It is damaging to aquatic ecosystems.

Nix, in some ways I think just like you, but in others I believe the opposite. You think that shunning technology and making a harmonious living with the earth is the proper approach. I believe that technology is the answer. Technology will make the shift to more green methods of power propagation, transportation, farming, logging, and a billion other things people do. It's just going to take a little while. Capitalism, which you seem to shun, offers a very real incentive to making this shift. The greatest motivator in people is the desire for money (which represents material goods). If there is money to be made, people will do it, much to the benefit of the rest of society and the planet.

Any major natural disaster can and will be avoided or dealt with through the right scientific knowledge. There is several threats to the earth and humanity that will never be stopped by "back to the earth" ideals. Let's use the situation other people have presented; an asteroid. The effect on the environment would be cataclysmic at best, easily making up for any damage to the environment humanity avoided. With the right knowledge and technology (and a healthy bit of capitalist incentive, seeing as you can't make money if your dead) you could deflect that asteroid, thus saving humanity AND the environment. In a "back to the earth" society both the former and the latter would be destroyed.

In conclusion, are we damaging the environment? Yes, without a doubt. Can it be repaired and dealt with? I think so, yes. Do I agree with your approach to dealing with the problem? No.

One last example; the sun will expand in a few billion years, the earth will be destroyed along with it. I would like to think that humanity will survive after that event. A "back to the earth" approach will not accomplish that.

It's nice to see a well thought out argument added to this debate.

Hi MasterOfAll.

About consumption. To consume takes time and resourses. If people did'nt feel the need to have material wealth they would mave time for other things. Fathers would have time to grow their families food, meaning there would be less demand for open land to grow crops. Which in turn might stop the destruction of the rain forests, grass lands and wood lands. Mothers would not have to work, which in turn would allow them to be at home to look after the family. Meaning that their children would be less likely to turn to crime and drugs, which in turn would mean the governments would spend less money on the police force, fire brigade and health services. Giving them more money to invest in green projects.

Consuption also creates alot of waste. If people bought what they needed there would be little need for packaging(alot of packaging is used to sell the product by making it stand out from the same products sold by different firms). I also know that alot of people by what they want but end up never using it. Or already have what they need, but due to the culture that capitalisum has created, they feel that if they don't buy the latest product they are some how not fulfilling their requirements for a happy life(keeping up with the Jones's). This also creates alot of waste as the alot of the items (which there is nothing wrong with) will be thrown away. These land fill sites are a waste of land and ticking time bombs of polution.
I think that this would create the 'intelligent managment of the resources available to us'
People have produced, bought and sold since the beginning of man. This will never change. Unfortunatly that is not what capitalisum is about. Capitalisum is about selling you what the company has made you believe you want/need.
If we got rid of apitalisum we would get rid of 85% of the waste.

Technology is what man/woman creates through knowlege and need. If people had more time then the amount of new ideas created would give us the technology. I'm not against technology. Quite the opposite. Look at the technology created over the 1000's of years with out capitalisum. If anything capitalisum destroys the ability of new technologies. Big companies buy new technologies and then shelve them so their own products don't get compramised. Or they drop the price of their products so the new ones can't compete.
Only when the big bosses are effected buy climate change will they see the need to spend millions on changing their production lines to make the new products.

Dam is that the time
I have to go out. I normaly re-read what I have wrote and change things that need changing.
I'll be back.

Peace&Hardcore..................Nix001
Mother Natures Army

Over the past month I hav'nt had much sleep due to my battles.
Soon these battles will be over, and I'll be back on form with this disscusion.

War&Hardcore...........Nix001
MNA

personally i find philosophy .. it has to be broken, so it could be fixed .. not efficient ~ silly.

its true that if we pollute a river for example we have to and probably will come up with tech, thus (business) opportunity, to clean it up. assuming our faith in tech - ourselves - is not delusional or overly optimistic.

now the question is .. does it have to be that way? is this the only, most efficient, or the best way?

i can imagine i have a house with garden. will i throw garbage into my garden so i could pick it up later, to keep me busy, or will i try to dispose of garbage in a way that i would not have to deal with it later and instead will devote my time and energy to something else like .. watching birds?

yes watching birds will not make any profit, will not consume any resources, will not produce any garbage, but thats kinda the point.

edit: to be fair .. if we never broke anything, we would never need to fix anything, we probably wouldn't know how to fix something in case it would break.

in other words the famous .. what does not kill us, makes us stronger.

still, and this is more a philosophical question than environmental, how strong we really wanna be? coz if we wanna be really strong, lets .. nuke the planet eh?

The only question I ask is who gains by our loss of money, freedom, and soverignty to "save the planet"...

People like Nix.

Marxist dogma has little to do with nature and everything to do with controlling others.

The post from Nix is a perfect example of that political philosophy. We should all eat twigs and play hackysack and be equals..... in poverty.

The only people who hate Capitalism are the ones who have nothing, offer nothing, and lack the drive to risk personal assets in order to achieve something.

Profit is not a dirty word. Its a reward for sacrifice, planning, and hard work.

out of curiosity, as im not going to argue Nix nor Marx nor profit, how does what you call environmentalism restrain you Johanas Bilderburg?

some practical examples would be nice.

1. Price of gasoline increases.
2. Price of manufactured goods increases.
3. Price of electricity increases.
4. More governmental controls.
5. Higher taxes.
6. Less personal freedom.
7. Devaluement of private property.
8. Wealth transfer.
9. Being forced to hear treehugging bastards speaking is bad for your mental capacity.

Thats off the top of my head.

1,2,3,5 are practical examples 4,6,8 are not 7 i dunno where you get that from and 9 is well .. no comment

now i will give you examples of how increasing consumption, and what you seem to be standing for influences me:

1. price of gasoline increases
2. price of electricity increases

the higher demand the higher prices ..

3. every time i go out im in danger to be killed by car
4. being forced to breathe polluted air and listen to noise
5. instead of watching birds being forced to watch parking lot
6. being imposed on my various marketing schemes
7. being forced to buy garlic from china, which is not nearly as tasty as local one to me, only because the chinese one somehow made it to every market in vicinity
8. being forced to live with the fact that every day several species die out, despite i like having them around
9. being forced to hear the opposite of hippies is bad for my nerves, my mental capacity stays intact

now ..

we have the same rights, dont we? so who is right and who is wrong? which one of us can have it his way? you or me?

you see, as i said before, society is run by majority, and if majority decides, or rather representatives of majority decide, that you or i will not be allowed to do this or that, thats how it will be whether we like it or not.

in conclusion. anyone is free to believe anything s/he likes. anyone is free to campaign for any ideas and thoughts. anyone is free to think whatever s/he likes.

at the end its about what the society will decide.

so what? so nothing. there is as many reasons for the so called environmentalism as there is against it, there is as many reasons for what would be the opposite of the so called environmentalism as there is against it. and that is that. rhetorical exercises on virtual forums are neat, however, they wont change a damn thing.

No we do not have the same rights.

I live in Texas.

You live in Europe.

You ride a bicycle.

I live 80 miles from a store.

You look at birds.

I look at cattle.

You own some garlic.

I own a ranch.

You have a brilliant mind for debate.

I have people who depend on me to pay them to feed their families.


So no we don't have the same rights or responsibilities.

You do and should have the rights afforded by your nations laws.

I have the same.

Thank God I live in America.

Hi Nix,

I have several more questions for you based off that post, but I have to start with just one.

"Fathers would have time to grow their families food, meaning there would be less demand for open land to grow crops."

Curious about this line... Is there some deep meaning I'm not noticing? Or is the lack of sleep getting to you?

You see, to me reading this line, it seems counterintuitive. If everyone grew their own food, wouldn't it be more damaging to the environment? Afterall, large scale farming is far more efficient and effective than the type of farming a single person would use.

In my mind, capitalism allows for more efficiency, not less. Sure, people throw things away, and resources are wasted on flashy ads and whatnot, but a large company can generally produce things more efficiently that a single person could.

The pooling of large amounts of capital is a necessity for any major research or development. A single person or family cannot possibly amass that amount of resources on their own. The only way a single person could do that is in a capitalist system where their ideas could find support and money to back it up. Venture capitalists and whatnot. Wouldn't you agree?

Where you say new ideas are shelved to squeeze everybit of money possible out of old ideas, that may be true in some rare cases, but companies generally have competitors (unless they are a monopoly, and obviously those are bad). Almost every corporate buyout I can think of occured when one company was eager to gain a knowledge, interface, or technology that they felt would give them an edge over the competition. They try to integrate new technologies into their preexisting ones to create a better product.

Also, a lot of technological and production advances help the environment, while making the people who thought of them a lot of money. Let's look at the world of computers. As things shrink, they provide several benefits to the environment. Modern processors do far more with far less electricity than their seemingly ancient anscestors. It takes less raw materials to produce the product. In alot of ways, companies are rewarded for becoming environmentally friendly. They cut production costs, and, as they love to point out, your electric bill. Capitalism is the perfect system for encouraging these advancements.

Socialism, communism, and any other form of extreme social welfare ignores one very important thing: Human Nature. People are greedy! There's no denying it. We crave power, money, pleasure, and everything else that makes us feel good or in control. I would recommend that if you haven't already, you read Mark Twains "What is Man". If you do read it, you will discover that you are in the position of the "young man". Although I don't agree with everything in the book, he is spot on when he explains that people don't do things just to be nice. They do things because they derive enjoyment out of it in some way. Capitalism is the one system that acknowledges that fact and is designed so that one persons greed is helpful to somebody else. It rewards people for coming up with ways to better other peoples lives. That is why capitalism is the only viable system by which we can live.

I look forward to your answer, I love a good debate.

Ben

Of course nix would post here, Something that has to do with "Environmentalism" will attract him.

What is Nix's main country? I've been kind of curious after reading all these threads were he seems to be the center of attention.

Ok Ben. I'm..............Stuie's already given away my location and the last thing I need is a brick through my window.


Instead of the introduction I'll get straight to the point.

Unless you live in flats, you will have a garden. Instead of a bed of Hostas you could grow cabbage. Instead of Phalaris arundinacea you could grow beans. Sure, keep the Buddleja for the butterflies and the Lobelia for the bee's. Did you know that in the 1960's builders in the UK had to include fruit tree's and enough land for the garden so the family could be partly self sufficient? Why have slab's when you could grow food? Time. That's why the farmer was created.

I'm a little pissed.
I've been down the pub to watch England beat Ukraine.

I'm gonna say that the government should come up with the solutions?
And that capitalisum is also the perfect system to let some people's human nature flurish.

Are most companies not part of a monopoly?
You buy one make of car but it's built from another makers parts.
I know thats just one example, but I'm sure theres loads more. My brain is numb.

And that those who don't care will reach the top.
And those who do care will end up being something they are not.

And that one persons greed is only helpful to someone else if the greedy person has morals. But like we know, morals is low on the list when it come to a job interview or getting some one to invest in you.

Sorry Ben. The words are alittle bit blury and I've got to spend the next couple of hours setting up my forward divisions.

I should have probably left my answer till tommorow/later. But some times I'll come back and there's been 11 posts after the question and it's hard to bring something back up thats already past.

What do you think?

Did you know that the rich nations say that the only reason why the poor nations are poor is because they hav'nt put their women to work?

And that some big cats don't care about Nature because they think that they will be living in space when the shite hit's the fan.

I should leave.

Peace. Nix
Mother Natures Sim Army.

Did you know that the embodiment of capitalisum was created in 1903?
It's a kind of magic.
We'll, manipulation.

jesus christ ..as human beings we have the same rights. you and me, in my post, could be any other two people.

are we gonna try to understand what the other one says or are we gonna pick on words and phrases? are we 11 year old, or can we understand metaphors and read between the lines?

the times i was arguing silly are long gone. so .. hasta la vista! cry me a river about environmentalism, i could care less.

The irony is that most of the so-called "sustainable" practices espoused by soft green environmentalists are in fact the practices of the past that wrought so much environmental damage for centuries.

We have climbed a long ladder to reach this point where we can plant more trees than we harvest, overfeed ourselves from a small fraction of the arable land available, and power our societies without having to destroy our natural spaces.

Yet foolish voices clamor for a return to the ways that destroyed much of the Northern Hemisphere's original habitats.

"Sustainable" is anything but, not from biomass and recycling, which destroys nature and disrupts the carbon cycle.

Doing more with less has gotten us to this undreamed of standard of living. Yet, while we are poised on the brink of even greater exponential gains, viable fusion power and the unlimited potential of genetic engineering for examples, fear mongers want to roll back the clock and embrace disaster for both mankind and the environment.

There is only one real environmental concern: the preservation and expansion of natural spaces, unexploited by man.

The path of progress in keeping as much as possible of this planet in its natural state lies in living from the resources found outside the biosphere, not in it.

Soft Green Environmentalism is merely the rebirth of the Gaiaist religion swaddled in the failed philosophies of marxism.

Nix provides shining proof of this with every regurgitation of this pop-culture, pseudo-science nonsense.

nix = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfiS-lQrOYo


And why in the world is my post at the top?

Just so it's abundantly clear... I did not start this thread.

I know BC. I've already said that we have lost the beginning of the thread. FarmerBob created it.

As for your youtube clip...................These people feel my pain. But the future will scream out "why did our parents generation not care?" "Why have they left us with this mess?"(I liked your analogy of the green house Zde).

FarmerBob. You talk like the world is not about to go into financial melt down.
Do you know how long it takes for a tree to mature? And how much of our arible land is worthless without the aid of fertalisers?
Do you know how little of the world's natural spaces has not exploited by man? In England, even the green belt is now being built on.

Who are you putting your faith in to sort this out FarmerBob?

When people are fighting a losing battle, sometimes they have to be a bit extreme. If everyone agreed that we need to stop the destuction of these green spaces and the environment, I and others would'nt feel the need to be so extreme.

You still hav'nt answered my quetion from months ago. You said on another thread: 'As nations prosper, concern for the environment will follow in due course.'

And I asked: 'as nation's become poorer, what happens then?'

Nix,

What makes you think nations are becoming so much poorer? China is gradually rising from a third world country to a modern economic powerhouse. Sure, they aren't treating the environment very nicely while doing that, but I think it will change over time.

Africa (and other poor nations), in my opinion, is struggling due to receiving too much of the wrong kind of aid. Charities give them end products, they don't help build industry in these countries that would hire workers and ultimately make a more long lasting success. The lack of a good, uncorrupted military is a major issue also. Some military force (NOT the UN, don't even get me started on how worthless they are) needs to stand up to the warlords and people who want nothing more than to exploit people for their own gain. They lack a solid government that actually stands up for the people and works actively to improve conditions in their country. The aid they receive is exactly the wrong kind.

Did the US receive aid? The UK? Russia? No, all of those countries improved because somebody saw a way to make money and improve their quality of life. Be that method revolting on you folks across the pond or whatever. That is the glory of capitalism! It makes it impossible for someone to improve their quality of life, most likely improving someone elses. Sure, Britain lost out when the colonies revolted, but a lot of other people benefited. It's nature embodied in society. Everybody can't win every time. You appreciate nature; are you going to say that everyone wins in predation? The death of say, one rabbit, might leave space for another rabbit to live, but the rabbit that got eaten certainly didn't win in that exchange.

Capitalism allows for human nature AND nature. It has benefited society. There are plenty of people that have lost in the capitalist system, but far more have benefited. Never make yourself too dependent on some other entity, or else their mistakes affect you as well as them.

I like the idea of eventually expanding out into the stars, but we can't burn the bridge behind us, only to realize we left something important behind. Anyone that thinks we'll be off earth by the time these things come and bite us in the ass is a fool.

On the whole "countries are poor because they don't make they're women work", I think there's far more things at fault than that. However, if you believe women are equal to men (which I do), they can't put themselves in a position where they depend on another person and expect to live a great life. You need to be capable of being independent, be it financially or otherwise. Women certainly could help a country by working and helping to lift their country out of poverty.

There are very few people with no morals. Only a sociopath finds themselves in that situation. Capitalism allows for morals, it just makes a point of not forcing them on people. You exist in a capitalist society; you have morals don't you? Capitalism doesn't represent the shunning of morals, it acknowledges their exist and the right of a person to choose how much bearing they place on them.

Ben

Ben,

Capitalism: 'An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.'

Thats all it is. There is nothing else to it.
I love money and money loves me. Nothing else matters. Like you said, you can make other things matter if you wish. But thats up to you. No-one is forcing you to do anything apart from to work within the system. And if don't, you'll become an out-cast. Even an out-law to some.

The problem is when you take a part of life and make it all of life. Like with communism, Islamism, socialism, environmentalism etc, etc capitalism has become a way of life with no reasoning for anything else.
Which in a world where everything has something to do with everything else is doomed for failure.

Capitalism has come to the end of the road. There are no-more profits to be made, meaning no investors will invest, meaning no more products to be sold, meaning no more money.
Unfortunalty the west needs money to pay of it's debts. And unless China gives up saving and starts spending, were are F&$£@.
But why would they do that? They can see the only reason we are in this mess is because we spent all our money. And then to keep our system going, we were encouraged to get into debt(going on the never never, to my grandparents generation) or spend/invest any savings.
I know China needs us to spend money for their own economies sake, so they might lend us the money????????????? But what I can see happening is china just tapping into the third world market that will be funded by IMF money while they wait until we are well and truly messed up and then pick up the pieces. While at the same time telling us to turn towards communism.
Maybe now China does'nt have to compete with us they will start to look at the environmental issue. And hopefully we will learn our lessons and realise that theres more to life apart from money. Fingers crossed.

Nix001
Mother Natures Sim Army

I ask on behalf of the future that if any of you end up on the streets protesting or rioting..........Please don't burn tyres.

Nix,

I know this sounds harsh to environmentalism, but as long as other countries have natural resources, they have money.

And I'm not so convinced that there is no more money to be made. As long as people need (or want) stuff, and have a source of income, there exists profit potential for someone else.

China buying up other countries debt is hardly a serious threat to capitalism. If Obama would wake up a bit, it wouldn't even be a threat at all. If anything, I think it's funny that they think they can use currency to corner a nation/economy. The simple fact is, the US will just print more money, making China's investment in us a huge mistake. As the actual value of our debt drops, Chinese investors get screwed. Sure, the US will hurt in the process (as inflation goes up), but it's what we'll do either way. Currency has no real value, it's value exists in the idea that it's worth something. Raw materials and products have real value, and China would have a tough time buying all the planets raw materials.

Also, money is not the central issue in people's lives, it's simply a means to an end. I wouldn't say money has become the basis of people's lives. It can get that way when people don't have enough, but once people have enough they don't worry about it as much or even at all.

If it isn't clear, I live in the US. I'm assuming you live in the UK? So your perspective and mine are bound to be a bit different. As a yank, I'm inclined to say China can go to hell. But they are clearly the biggest threat to the US economically and, if they aren't already, militarily.

On a less serious note, those riots were a bit crazy that one day there. It's a good thing the police stepped in and stopped the vandalism. I'm curious; Do those rioters represent a minority over there? Or do a lot of you folks actually approve of what those people were doing? The news here tends to just show us the footage of that one guy with blood running down his face and a bunch of people attacking riot police, and then talk about how bad it is. I would like to know the reasoning these people have.

Ben

Nix,

First and foremost, you are a hypocrite. You talk about giving up our wants and desires, and do only what we have to in order to meet our basic needs in order to avoid "wasting" resources. In order to convey this message you participate in an online game, using countless products of the free market aimed solely at meeting the wants and desires of their consumer base. Your means contradict your own desires.

And you wonder why nobody takes your seriously?

Secondly, I have to concur with FarmerBob. Millennia of suffering have been abaited by the betterment of technology and technique in specific relation to agriculture alone.

But beyond this, I think it is important to point out that I do not wish to grow my own food. You see, my skills and my employ are oriented quite heavily around the creative industries, most notably writing, publishing and the such.

The one thing that elevates humans above the rest of the animal kingdom - in my opinion - is our ability to imagine, to postulate and to innovate. Humanity has a distinct penchant for creativity.

Now why, pray tell, should I give up one aspect of my very nature - one which I find fulfilling - in order to become a full-time food grower or gatherer - a task for which I am not suited, nor do I hold any interest or skill in - when there are plenty of people out there who do enjoy it, are willing to provide this as a service for a small degree of compensation with which both they and I are happy?

Why should I surrender my creativity in order to do a job which somebody else would rather do for me?

You talk of capitalism as a wasteful process. And yet the free market is the most effective means of getting required resources to the locations where they are needed most.

The nature of the free market is very much like that of the natural world. Resources and products flow according to supply and demand. Niches are filled through the evolution of mechanisms in order to fill and exploit gaps. Every process has waste - it is just a question of finding a secondary process where this waste is a valuable resource. It functions much like a food chain.

And nature is far from energy efficient.

There are some residual aspects which are not always nice on a very local scale. But when it comes down to it, the free market has proven time and again that it is far more efficient than any other proposed model of economy. If is far less wasteful and produces far fewer excesses than previously tried methods.

But I digress. This topic is supposed to be about the environment.

Here's a question for you, Nix. How many species of plant and animal now thrive thanks to human activity? Go on. Go learn something.

Miles.

Rats, bine weed and algae.
Not many compaired to the ones that have died out. 1000's a year.
I know thats only three. But the ways things are going we will have just a couple of dominant speices and the rest will die. Not good for the Bio diversity needed to sustain life.
Quote from you 'Now why, pray tell, should I give up one aspect of my very nature'
Does your nature not also tell you to protect the future generations?
Sometimes we have to go against our natural instinct do what is right by others.

About you growing some food. I write on here, grow food on my alotment, work as a tree surgeon and gardener, keep up to date with current affairs, make sweet love to the women, catch up with my friends, cook some good food, help out my family, walk the dog, do a work out and my chores all in a day, so why can't you? All you need to do is dig some soil, plant some seeds then water.

If your a writer you might also get some insperation. You know what they say: The garden is the closed place you'll get to God.
What kind of things do you write?