The great global warming swindle

[komodo]

sure, i rephrased that to forestall you taking issue, but you had already jumped in

so you tar environmentalism with being often these things... unlikeable and a form of terrorism.

as far as unlikeable goes, no offence but who gives a shit whether you like greenies or not, really. personal issues with a handful of individuals attitudes are not sufficient to brand a global proactive movement for nature as 'often ugly and fanatical'.

as far as eco-terrorism goes:

i've seen pretty, pacifist greenies get bashed by ugly, fanatical coppers and loggers far more 'often' than the reverse. in fact, the only time i've seen so-called-"environmentalists" acting ugly and fanatical has been in the media, when anarchist groups have taken violent action against authorities at large rallies. my experience of front line activism was of dedicated, thankless protection of nature with strict adherence to NVDA principles which in rare & extreme cases extended to sneaky sabotage and infiltration. i have had direct experience of this and in no way agree with your idea that these people and this movement is 'often ugly and fanatical'. in some very rare cases it might be.

this label you are hanging on the environmental movement is in fact a tool of corporate governance used to perpetuate violent action against civil disobedients. "they're (eco)terrorists, so we can exercise the special terrorism laws". if you genuinely insist that "ecoterrorism" is a real, scary, ugly & fanatical thing that is often taking place, please back up your claims with some experience or data.

Edited May 30, 2007 by komodo

[komodo]

*wanders off*

[chilli]

so you tar environmentalism with being often these things... unlikeable and a form of terrorism.

Incorrect, as I said I take issue with the label terrorism for the acts these groups commit, also I don't "tar" environmentalism with anything, you are putting spin on my words again (does "value-laden words" ring any bells?). Not sure where you got the word unlikeable from either, I don't think I used it. I also qualified my reference to eco-terrorism with the statement that I was uncomfortable with it. So you're off to a bad start with your paraphrase.

Your paraphrase is unnecessary any way, I don't need you to "sum up" my words for me... they stand as they are, both the initial statement and the many ensuing qualifications and explanations, of which only one should have been necessary. I think the green movement has an ugly and fanatical element. No matter how much you try, you can't actually convince me that I meant something different from what I say I meant, so I'm not sure what outcome you're hoping for.

I think any movement as big as the green movement can get ugly and fanatical... it seems to be an endemic fault of human nature. I consider myself green (although I'm sure you'd question my credentials), so nothing shits me about greenies being somehow ontologically elite... actually greenelite would make a cool name. Its about an attitude of elitism, a smugness or a self-righteousness... its also about ugly forms of extremism, and these are the things I take issue with, not whether or not I like someone who happens to be green... and your suggestion that I don't like greens is yet another one of your fantasies. As with any movement, I think these are issues that it can only be beneficial to address or at least acknowledge, and I think this can only be done with any credibility from those within the movement or sympathetic to it.

As far as what I've actually said goes, your anecdotes and experience are irrelevant... I didn't say "the green movement is ugly and fanatical more often than other movements," my statement was purely relative and you've simply jumped on it blown it out of all proportion and tried to turn it into something it was never intended to denote, despite my immediate and easily comprehensible explanation.

I haven't had any personal experience of so-called eco-terrorism that I can think of and I don't insist on any of the things you've said. As far as data goes, you can research the many stories I linked to yourself if you're so interested. I think you've gotten personally offended by comments I made that you totally misinterpreted and started defending something I never attacked in the first place. You ran out of steam on the movie comment and so you've jumped tracks and are riding this for all its worth. I stand by everything I've said thus far and I reject your accusations and reformulations of my sentences.

I think that critical self analysis is absolutely vital in the success of any movement, organization or even nation.

You can feel free to disagree or continue to grasp at straws in your bizarre attempt to impute fascist anti-environmentalist attitudes to me all you wish, I've pretty much grown tired of this game and have more fulfilling things to do than pander to some word juggling self-styled green inquisitor.

Edited May 30, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

I didn't say "the green movement is ugly and fanatical more often than other movements," my statement was purely relative

no you didnt say that, and i didn't say you said that

you said, and thus far have maintained, it was often ugly and fanatical. that isnt relative. i've explained that i don't think it is often these things, why i think its a counterproductive thing to say for someone who respects the environment, and i've asked for your justification for the claim. it isn't forthcoming, but i've made the point on the record (if anyone reads this tiresome crap) and you're fed up with the thread, so sure, we can drop it.

[chilli]

"you said, and thus far have maintained, it was often ugly and fanatical. that isnt relative."

"Often" is a relative term, although you are free to believe differently in the relativistic mush of your mind if you wish.

"i don't think it is often these things... and i've asked for your justification for the claim. it isn't forthcoming"

Oh really? I've qualified my use of the word many times over in this discussion so far, despite your blatantly dishonest claims to the contrary:

IllegalBrain said:

"I don't necessarily think eco-terrorism is necessarily the most appropriate word, but these links (over 300,000 in total) I think support the usage of the word "often"... Also, I don't restrict my "ugly and fanatical" comment only to so called eco-terrorism, but I think it applies more widely to people in the green movement who I think come across as self-righteous, hypocritical, or embittered.

I said 'the green movement can often be ugly and fanatical,' you asked for examples of this and I gave you two: eco terrorism, which occurs frequently enough and with enough publicity to be considered often, and self-righteous, elitist mentality greens who also give the movement a bad image.

I fully understand the way eco-terrorism is used as an epithet to smear the green movement generally, something I object to. I explained all this in my last post so you either need to read it more carefully or you're just being silly again."

Seeing as you seem unable to grasp this simple concept I'll help you out and make it easier for you to understand by leaving out the word to say "the green movement can be ugly and fanatical." Hopefully that should make it easier for you to look past the pedantics and grasp my actual point, as explained:

"Both paragraphs were clearly using hyperbole and self-deprecatory humor to convey a message, which was that our appearance and our political alignment do not always accurately represent our values and motives... this was in response to the comment earlier in the thread that there were ulterior motives on 'both sides,' something I agree with up to a point... I do not believe all those in the environmental movement are driven by altruism and honesty as you seem to, but instead I think there are often political issues, power issues, social class issues and basic human pride issues involved. This is not 'beating up on environmentalism,' it is being realistic about human nature and in my mind its crucial these kinds of issues are analyzed and discussed if we are to have a successful 'green revolution' and not simply a power shift where the underdogs become the new overclass."

You say things from your high horse like "I've made this point on the record," and ask me to justify my claims... and yet you completely ignore the places where I have done so and even disingenuously try to say I've not been forthcoming. You seem to alternate between skimming over my posts and trawling them with a fine toothed comb for "evidence" to use against me. This "often" issue which you seem so hung up on wasn't even mentioned until you had nowhere else to go with the accusations you were making at me over the movie.

The fact that you continue to assert I have not answered your questions when I clearly have done so far beyond anything that would reasonably be expected, especially in the face of your dishonesty, snide remarks and dog tactics of interrogation, shows me beyond doubt that you have no interest in reaching an understanding, but would be happy arguing and quibbling until the fabled cows come home.

*excessive nastiness edited out*

Edited June 1, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[botanika]

the internet is not a suitable forum, the bandwidth is too narrow to explain ones whole psychology and people misunderstand each other easily. you end up with big nasty posts going nowhere.

so we can see...

[chilli]

Yeah, the trouble with that Botanika is there are things other than "personal issues" that can derail a thread, such as not giving other people the benefit of the doubt and purposefully fostering misunderstandings. As I already pointed out the vast majority of this present derailment has consisted of me explaining the same thing to komodo over and over again... it gets quite frustrating after a while. Komodo simply choosing to label my posts as 'bringing personal issues to the table' or 'psychodrama' does not make them such... if you read the posts that he made these comments in response to you'll see that each one of them consisted of answers to his allegations. Of my 18 posts in this thread, only my second one could be considered "personal," and I challenge anyone to show me that this is not the case.

Edited June 1, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

brain, i reckon i've been nicer and more polite to you than you've been to me take it easy eh.

[chilli]

"brain, i reckon i've been nicer and more polite to you than you've been to me take it easy eh."

Aside from the fact that I reckon differently, who said anything about nice and polite? All I've asked for is integrity and consistency with regard to the topic. I'd be more inclined to accept your apparent bewilderment at face value if you ever bothered to actually address or even acknowledge my many comprehensive attempts to clarify my position instead of blithely heaping one criticism upon another... this is what differentiates a discussion from an interrogation. But hey, whatever turns you on.

Edited June 2, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

my concern is with the negative spin on the global environmental movement.

the reason i focus on the phrase 'often ugly and fanatical' is because it is a) untrue, public, and c) reinforces misconceptions. i have enquired as to whether these issues are real and substantial:

I gave you two: eco terrorism, which occurs frequently enough and with enough publicity to be considered often, and self-righteous, elitist mentality greens who also give the movement a bad image.

picking through the rubble of insult and affront, these are the two things that emerge from the black box. unfortunately the number of google hits tells me nothing other than a lot of people bandy about the term ecoterrorism, and the accusation of elitism seems to be a bald statement.

for the first: as i mentioned ecoterrorism is a media term and a police device, within the frontline activist community the prevailing ethos is non-violent direct action. if some violent and terrifying actions are committed in support of the environment, they are incredibly rare compared to the mass of proactive lawful activities or passive resistance taking place around the world.

for the second: most of my community are active environmentalists and reasonable, liberal and prosocial. in meeting with council or governmental bodies, the least elitist and fanatical people have been the environmental consultants. media profile environmentalists such as al gore, tim flannery or peter garrett seem to me personable, self-effacing and non-judgemental. so i'm not sure where the image of elitist, self righteous greenies comes from, in my experience to often associate these attitudes with environmentalism is incorrect.

illegalbrain, perhaps as you suggest this is all a soapbox fabrication of mine, that in fact you aren't broadly criticising environmentalism and you agree with me. in which case, come out and say it, or even just stop posting so i'll have noone to fabricate at.

botanika, sorry for messing up your thread

Edited June 2, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

My concern is with the way you're exaggerating the negative element in what I've said.

I have modified my original statement to say "the green movement can be ugly and fanatical," leaving out the word 'often' and I think I've indicated quite clearly that I'm not broadly criticizing environmentalism in the previous qualifications. The sentence you object to was never intended to be taken alone, but was a concession to those who were saying environmentalism was like a religion and that it used fear based tactics to achieve its ends.

With the perspective of a few days crying myself to sleep I admit my choice of the word often was unfortunate and inaccurate... I just use it that way a lot in everyday speech, I'll say "I often think..." but I really just mean I think about something every now and then. I should have just substituted the word 'sometimes' instead of 'often' and probably would have if your criticism wasn't riding on the back of others. By the stage you brought it up it just seemed like you were trying to pick holes in what I was saying, and I was feeling defensive.

Furthermore, I wasn't talking about high profile figures when I mentioned personalities, but I certainly have met my share of greens that come across as high-minded and fanatical. Of course, these people might think of themselves as noble and uncompromising, so this is admittedly a question of perspective, but its one that is shared by the not inconsiderable many who criticize the movement.

You say if I'm not broadly criticizing environmentalism to come out and say it, but I already have quite early on:

"...this is not beating up on 'environmentalism,' it is singling out ugly fanaticism within the green movement... I did not say the green movement is ugly and fanatical per se"

As I've reiterated, any brand of authoritarianism or extremism makes me uncomfortable, and this is what I was trying to address... it was not a critique of environmentalism generally, but of a specific political approach. My initial idea was to criticize the way that political considerations can undermine or discredit a movement... going back to my earlier analogy, I think the association in most people's minds and in reality of 'green' with 'extreme left' is unfortunate and unnecessary, the same way I'm troubled by the association of 'christian' with 'extreme right'.

I hope this clears things up somewhat, and I apologize for the nasty comments I made in anger.

Edited June 2, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

cheers brain that does clear things up a bit.

i often get defensive reactions from people when i argue with them, so thats partly my fault. also the state of the environment is something im passionate about so i get critical on it.

i'd still support green tyrants telling all the suburbanites where to shove their SUVs over conventional politics anyday ;)

[chilli]

*the titans settle into an uneasy truce... for now.*

I guess we were reduced to the two choices you present, I'd take the green tyrant option as well, but I hope there are more moderate solutions...

Oh no, now we're back to the fence sitting ;)

BTW I finished watching An Inconvenient Truth... great film, by the end I even grew to like Gore's fat sentimental head filling the screen. I was interested to know what you think about the way he presents it as an overarchingly moral issue... this relates back to my earlier question which I think you missed... how does moral relativism relate to rights and responsibilities, for instance with regard to environmental issues?

*edit* I just went back over the Rape of Mars thread, and I saw something I missed before... you said "...based on an reasonable assumption of shared values, not an absolute."

But then doesn't it really come back to an argument from survival, since the most basic and probably only widely held shared assumption is the fact that we need some semblance of an Earth in order to continue living? There are clearly many people who don't consider natural systems innately sacred... how do we convince them that caring for the environment is important if not by appealing to their desire to pass on their genes?

Edited June 5, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[botanika]

Ive written a lot below and much of it is rehetorical or somewhat unconnected so I apologise for that. I probably should have done some research or cut and pasted more sholarly work on such an important subject but I just let my thoughts ramble on like a tumbleweed. Komodo and IB: no worries about getting off topic, all the points raised are good in the end!

The scale of the environment is firstly difficult to manage. Often in the same sentence we are told to buy low emission cars and recycle rubbish but then also to save the planet. Meanwhile there are plenty of other natural mass destructives to contemplate and manage like super volcanoes, earthquakes and asteroids.

I personally see infinite choices in the way we should live and a huge number of choices in the way we can live. There are many responsibility layers on which this is happening, some of which we can and do take definite action and others I think people are taking too far in their hopes. A lot of people don’t understand responsibility and a lot of people don’t understand this planet, so asking populations to be responsible for the planet is not easy and perhaps not even possible!!

Moral arguments are too viscous for me on a global level - they only work for a small percentage of the global population and can be shaped to any form someone powerful wants (like when George Bush morally declares war on Iraq from a church disguising other agenda’s) thereby tainting the ‘reasonable assumption of shared values’. To share values you have to share wealth. It is only the environment itself that truly governs what we can and can't do. One of our greatest moral values is perhaps not to kill another person, but we do it all the time. In our past and present history we’ve spent more money, time and effort killing each other than we ever have conserving nature or reducing resource consumption. We even save our most advanced technologies for killing. We perpetuate our own existence relative to nature, but we don’t perpetuate nature relative to us in the same way. That is our behaviour. Human right's is what it is - the right to be human. If one guy wants the right to keep SUV's off the road, what's wrong with another person's right to drive an SUV? Both rights have resulted from human advancement and both may lead to further advancement or may not. Progress and destruction both have opportunities. The right to freedom equals the right to do anything. If your freedom imposes on someones else's then 'freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose' and survival of the fittestluckiest takes over. Look at the US foreign policies. I like, respect and learn from people like Al-Gore discussing 1 of the major issues; global warming - but I love, respect and learn from the entire truth of nature even more-so and that means accepting some of its brutal sides. Psychedelics can help that! On the see saw of life the major balancing point is nature - all the things we 'should do to save the environment' are just adjusting how comfortable the seat is on the way up and down. Absolutely we all want a better seat and can help! That's the easy part because we've always been helping each other top a degree and probably always will. I understand what I'm sitting on but I don't always know what the see saw's doing and neither do a lot of the scientists.

The scary issue for me is our population dynamic. The current environmental crisis, to me, is a process of us finding out our limits - something that's occurred time and time again in our evolution and a bit like a teenager who's just got a licence and a car. With both careful assessment and greedy naivety we are determining what level of human population and development the earth can withstand. Both the good and bad shapes us into who we are. To better advance ourselves into the future perhaps we don't need yet another hardline - save the planet or we'll all die miserably - approach but what we need to understand is how and why we advance at all. What does it actually mean to be human - soldiers, rapists, greenies and oil CEO's included and how has the environment truly shaped that behaviour. I don't see it as left yard, right yard and people sitting on the fence in between (what's wrong with that anyway? Good views and you can always smash the fence down! hehe). By matter of course we are changing, adapting and improving in many ways. By matter of course we make good and bad decisions. Ultimately life moves forward as a group, not just as decisions. You can bomb the world, you can educate the world with passion, you can illegalize the world if you want but it will still fluctuate up and down and our population will still respond in the variety of ways it has been doing since we first started adapting to climate change on the African savannah's. We're actually very much used to adapting to climate change, we've had hundreds of thousands of years of that - what many of us globally are not used to is our population reaching limits. Easter islanders might have once understood that context.

There are positive opportunities in that population size too of course but the rate of current massive environmental destruction is predominantly pushed along by massive populations and the natural competition for resources that stimulates. The most sustainable people on this planet are the small groups of people that don't do much at all or simply can't do much at all because of the environmental limitations governing them. They are also the most vulnerable. The large groups of people who take lots of action are the groups that have impacted the planet the most and also the most robust. Many environmentalists want to take a not dissimilar style of action than politicians to change our systems. They are only ever going to change one system to another which will certainly help and of course I'm all for it - don't get me wrong. Like Komodo said, id rather have the green movement in than our current political agenda too. We can all tread more lightly but we can't all stop treading.

To stop ourselves heading into the impending global doom that we are being told will happen (not if but when) it’s the size of the systems that I believe need changing. To do that I feel requires not just a paradigm shift in our attitudes to the environment but towards reproduction and how far humans want to take our behaviour. It's a very strong biological urge to have children and not many people abstain from having children for conservation reasons. There are also pro's and con's to controlling population as china well knows. And of course everyone believes their child can make a difference so why not have a few! Tricky stuff man. Motivated action is energy, it always has a positive and negative. A mass genocide of our population on this planet would be devastating for our lives but could be a wonderful big step for mother nature. We however take lots of little steps - sometimes people don't know where we are going - but I do hope we'll be able to keep walking slender in the grass.

The most consistent aspect of life on this planet is that it comes and goes. 350 million years ago sharks and rays comprised 60% of life on earth - nowdays they comprise 3%. In Al's book the best quote of all IMO is from somebody else, something like 'the biggest question is whether or not an opposable thumb and large creative linguistic brain is ultimately viable on this planet.' Before enforcing policies that affect our lives as much as the environment affects us, we should all ask that question.

I like to explore these angles, even the morally and politically nasty one's because they are all angles of ourselves. On one level I think humans come through with the goods when put on the line. There are a huge number of very passionate people creating real change and positive advancement in the environmental and community field we should all be inspired by. They're not working that much harder, they're not thinking that much smarter, they're not saving the planet to make you feel guilty or make that much money than the next person selling orange juice - they are just being human. It's nothing new to care and it's nothing new to not care. In the end we still move forward until we become extinct by whatever process you want to call it. There is no crisis really just the same ol Ying and Yang. Whats bad for the fish is good for us, whats bad for us is good for the cockroaches. I think our purpose is to stop stressing so much, get naked and dance! Tomorrow never knows.

'that which created us planted the seeds of our own destruction'

Edited June 6, 2007 by botanika

[komodo]

all the things we 'should do to save the environment' are just adjusting how comfortable the seat is on the way up and down.

that's not absolutely true, it depends on your values. speaking for myself, human comfort (or advancement) is currently a fair way down the list in terms of long term personal motivation, its more of a daily concern, to be readily compromised for other values.

i think the earth is in a pretty interesting state at the moment, the idea that we should be philosophical about it becoming, say, a radioactive wasteland within our lifetime, doesnt appeal to me. i don't have the same faith in human nature, i think people often act from selfish motivations, and are even capable of being deliberately cruel and destructive. i think it's good to stress the flaws in the interaction between humanity and the rest of the living earth, to pressure for change in society, to protect the (cosmically brief, rare and precious) flowering of life on the planet.

(i quoted you personally *botanika* but i'm really talking generally, in response to some of the ideas you put. i think we're mostly on the same page.)

how do we convince them that caring for the environment is important if not by appealing to their desire to pass on their genes?

there are different possible approaches: one is fear of cultural loss; another is fear of economic loss; another is seduction, the idea that green is beautiful; another is to establish green as sophisticated or socially desireable; etc. it's worth adding that these can all be pursued with honesty and integrity.

Edited June 12, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

Actually it was botanika.

[komodo]

cheers

[chilli]

No worries Fred

[komodo]

those answers to your question make sense to you brain?

[chilli]

Oops I didn't see that... they make sense to me, but I know people who can't seem to make sense of any arguments put forth in favor of environmental protection, and I kind of feel as though the desire to live and I guess for most people sire progeny is endemic to the vast majority and underpins many of those other values. Not that I would blame you at this stage, but did you purposefully skip my other question because you suspected it would be another can of worms?

[botanika]

Interesting state indeed. Natures pretty rubust - only took 24hrs for katrina to destroy new orleans and that was only a puff of wind by historical standards!

[komodo]

how does moral relativism relate to rights and responsibilities, for instance with regard to environmental issues?

that one?

it doesnt quite make sense to me the way it's phrased. if you're asking 'how does a moral relativist establish rights and responsibilities' my answer is on the basis of their values.

[chilli]

it doesnt quite make sense to me the way it's phrased. if you're asking 'how does a moral relativist establish rights and responsibilities' my answer is on the basis of their values.

Yeah I guess I did put it rather awkwardly... when I originally asked it on page 2 I think it was in the context of Gore's presentation of responding to global warming as a moral imperative.

[komodo]

all comes down to personal values. right and wrong is just a decision.

if we dont value complicated ecology, we dont mind when it gets fucked up. if we do value it, we do mind. personal choice of values.

that relates to botanikas idea of robust nature not being something to worry about... depends if you like it the way it is or dont really mind if it changes drastically

Edited June 15, 2007 by komodo

[botanika]

Komodo, i said nature can be robust, i didnt say we shouldnt worry about it. Good values dont necessarily mean good behaviour.