Nihil
Nihil's Journal"Are we a one issue party?" Apparently yes ...
... and the "issue" is pro-corporate profit at ANY cost.
> Mary votes with Democratic Senate 80 percent?
Suspect the 80:20 rule applies here too - 80 pro votes for political trivia vs 20 con votes for important issues?
(No, I haven't investigated her precise voting record over her career of seat-warming in the Senate so
am not interested in bickering over which few of the real progressive/liberal issues she has actually supported at
one time vs her day-to-day behaviour.)
Nice to see that the jungle drums summoned the usual cheerleaders on this subject too.
Fuck the planet, just maximise personal gain and whinge about people who aren't in lock-step
with the party apparatchiks.
Yes and no (with more no than yes).
> The problem with the environment is that it's being protected by environmentalists.
Disagree. The problem with the environment is that people have been taught to think that
"an environmentalist" is somehow a bad thing rather than a necessary & vital one.
They've been taught to think that "the environment" is somehow separate from themselves
and their own actions.
They've been taught to think that infinite growth is not only possible but desirable.
Finally, they've been taught to think that they shouldn't think for themselves but just accept
whatever is shouted loudest at them 24x7, that dissent (or even questioning) is bad and
that that mindless submission is good.
That is the problem.
I want environmentalists to remain rational & scientific, their arguments to remain logical & proven
and their appeal to remain sane & factual.
As a result, no, I do NOT want environmentalists to "get mad religious".
On the other hand, all of the religions with which I have had more than a passing contact with
*already* have sacred writings about "preserving the Earth", about "good stewardship", about
"helping the least amongst us", about "doing unto others as you'd want them to do unto you" and
such like. All of them. (And no, I do not count either economics or politics as a religion!)
I appreciate the individual religious "leaders" (from local priest up to Chief Rabbi) when they
recognise and support the environmental message within the context of their faith.
I have seen the good that such blending of environmentalism and religious belief can produce so
yes, I'd really like the religious people to "get mad religious" about those parts (rather than
the usual misogynistic, racist & xenophobic parts which are so much easier for a rabble-rouser
to feed to the herds).
I am in favour of leading by example, of direct action where appropriate and by rewarding good
behaviour whilst punishing bad. Good religious leaders act this way (with "good" meaning in the
sense of moral, honest, consistent & possessing integrity). My personal belief is that this is
because they are "good" people (with or without their religion) in the same way that someone
who hacks off a stranger's head is "bad" (with or without their religion).
For the record: I am not a member of any religion although I was taught at an early age by Jesuits,
have certain Deist, Taoist & Buddhist tendencies, married in a CofE church and have adult children
who are atheist, agnostic & approximately Deist (respectively).
That is a literally incredible statistic ...
> The world populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles
> fell overall by 52 percent between 1970 and 2010
I can't get my mind around the scale of the damage that it represents.
I can relate to all manner of statistics, numbers & events, treat risks in proportion
and understand the nature of the historical record but if any single statement
of a statistic makes me want to go bury my head in the sand it is that one.
Fuck.
And the matching one in your response:
> For example, in most of Europe, internal population growth is negative - they are having children
> below the replacement rate. Population in Europe is currently only rising due to immigration.
The immigration that is still causing the population to rise is from countries whose internal population
growth is not negative. That means that despite all of the "education" & "technology" (and hence the
voluntary restraint) of the native population, the number is still increasing and so the impact of that country
is increasing at a far higher rate than the simple number growth (due to the increased impact per capita
of the receiving country compared to the generating country).
The global population is still rising and, because of the increases also rolling into higher technological
countries, the global impact is rising faster than before.
> We are not creatures that mindlessly fuck and spit out offspring that either starve or reproduce.
That is where you are wrong.
At an "individual" level, that comment is correct but at a "creature" level, that is exactly what we are.
At an individual level, our impact on the planet is governed by the way we live our lives, what we consume,
what we waste. We might well choose to not breed at all or to restrict ourselves to replacement level.
We might also choose to live as low impact lifestyle as we can, to minimise our personal footprint.
Just don't forget that along with all of the child-free couples in First World countries, there are also the
quiver-full fanatics, the "only two children from our marriage" folks who then split up & re-marry three, four,
five times and the gross consumers (where gross refers to overall attitude to waste, possessions, disregard
for the environment and selfishness rather than simply the appetite of the morbidly obese).
Taken at the creature level, the net effect is what we have seen for decades: the source countries keep
going through the same "boom & bust" cycles that you so eloquently described as "mindlessly fuck and
spit out offspring". If the offspring arrive in a "boom" phase then they reproduce. If they arrive in a "bust"
phase then they either migrate to an "emptier" place (a sink country) or starve if unable to do so.
That is the basic situation that has existed since humans appeared but the cycle has been distorted
horribly as our ability to do so has increased thanks to the industrial revolution, the agricultural revolution,
the transportation changes, the advances in chemistry, ...
Even the Borlaug revolution didn't change the things that matter - the inner motivation - but it just raised
the stakes: When the "boom" phase is active then the impact is even higher than before and when the "bust"
phase hits, it affects more people at a time.
So, what's the solution? Prevent all immigration from countries that do not have internal negative growth?
I can see that going down well ...
Let people starve rather than shipping out supplies on a regular basis to whichever region is suffering
the "inhumanity" of a famine or drought? Yeah, that sounds so caring & civilised too.
We are between a rock and a hard place here and the pressure of the rock is just getting worse.
We affect those things that we can affect.
I totally agree with you about the difference in scale between what we as individuals
can do and the effect of the war machine (and also the pollution from the extraction
of the fossil fuels themselves, never mind just from burning them).
The underlying problem is greed - the desire to get more of "whatever" for oneself .
The war machine is a means to an end: it uses people & things to feed the greed of the
decision makers.
The overpopulation issue is an accelerant: it amplifies the effect of each individual's greed.
The disparity of wealth is a reinforcement, a positive feedback mechanism that ensures
that the plutarchy stays on top and that their decisions are carried out.
The issue driving all of these is greed ... and that isn't going away until the world changes.
And there we have the pro-Israel attitude in a nutshell ...
> "I don't view it as one"
(where "one" refers to "an atrocity" in the post to which he/she was replying)
Innocent children being maimed & killed?
"I don't view it as an atrocity."
Innocent women being maimed & killed?
"I don't view it as an atrocity."
Innocent men being maimed & killed?
"I don't view it as an atrocity."
War-crimes every day?
"I don't view it as an atrocity."
A world full of pain & misery?
"I don't view it as an atrocity."
No wonder that events are judged in terms of their theoretical monetary potential.
No-one with that attitude actually gives a shit about the human impact.
No wonder that exceptionalism is so widespread.
No-one with that attitude understands (much less tolerates) "difference".
No wonder that hypocrisy & hatred prosper around the globe.
No-one with that atttitude cares about anything except their own little bubble that
starts with "Me first" and ends with "Maximising profit at all external costs".
The underlying attitude is "Huh, *I* don't view it as a problem."
FTS.
The rest of the world already "recognize who the good guys are" ...
> I can't understand anyone against the U.S. and PBO's government aiding our allies.
> There are good guys and bad guys and thank God that Harry Reid, PBO, Barbara Boxer
> and others in our caucus recognize who the good guys are.
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the
political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important
for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy
of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."
History doesn't really change anything except the colours of the uniforms and the flags
they wear upon them.
That just about sums it up doesn't it?
> World stocks rise as Ukraine plane tensions ease
That is ALL that some people - the "leaders" - care about.
Nothing about the 298 dead people on that plane.
Nothing about the 700 killed in Syria.
Nothing about the hundreds killed in Gaza.
Nothing about the devastation to the environment done every day.
Nothing about the impact of climate change.
Nothing else.
Just that the fucking stock price rose slightly.
"determined to find the cause of an unprecedented earthquake epidemic"?
If Mr.Holland was appointed "Oklahoma’s seismology chief" for scientific rather
than political reasons then he already knows the cause. It isn't rocket science.
It is well proven and there is abundant evidence for the linkage.
What he has to do is find the courage to tell people.
He knows that the minute he pops his head up to open his mouth, he (and his
family, friends, colleagues & supporters) will be the target of unbounded hatred,
libel, slander & physical threats. He will be at risk from every retarded redneck
with a gun (or access to explosives) who will be deliberately driven onwards
in their ignorance by the corrupt & greedy owners of the state (and country
for that matter).
In sharp contrast to the case of brainwashed religious morons, it is a very
hard decision for an intelligent objective person to knowingly become a martyr.
As if the article wasn't bad enough ...
... reading some of the comments on that page really bring it home
that there is no hope for humanity as long as there are red-necks
on the planet.
Suddenly, I understand why American foreign policy has been basically
"finding the next easy target to pillage", why so much of the US budget
is given to the arms industry and why Republicans keep getting elected.
It is all down to the vast numbers of sub-humans (definitely not homo sapiens)
that have been allowed to take over and thus globally & forever tarnish the
name & image of the birthplace of those intelligent liberals unfortunate enough
to have to share the same patch of land as those yeast-like creatures.
You have my sympathy with your valiant fight against inbred stupidity.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHome country: England
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 13,508
