Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
botanika

The great global warming swindle

Recommended Posts

hahaha naked to :D

People with kids though? More likely to hit beaches and parks etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol so to get people fit you get them outdoors, this means more people who dont care are inflicted upon the places you love, littering destroying whats left.

well, I was really only thinking of getting them to consume less, I didnt actually have any plans for a Biggest Loser meets Survivor type endeavor, but then again, a UK company has already beaten me to it! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too true... fuck of a lot more bins'd help though. What's the point of mass education on littering then giving the general public 1-2 bins to a big park on a sunday?

Maybe evolution can help us out... fungi that hone in on maccas remains :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the removal of bins everywhere shits me, stupid terrorism phobias :BANGHEAD2: "look citizens we have made you safe! No bins so they will never be able to hide a bomb in a public place now!"

With the fat people though, Im just jealous, Im waiting for lipo-injection technology, so when it comes winter time they can just suck it out of one tubby bugger and put it all into me :lol:

Edited by gamma.goblin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most arguments for taking action against the human devastation of natural ecosystems rest on one of two premises: that complex evolved ecosystems are inherently valuable, or that humanity is inherently valuable and is dependant upon these ecosystems. i agree with both; basically because i hold that evolution is meaningful and desirable.

the idea that evolution is inherently valuable is a personal evaluation, if you don't hold it, the imperative below won't mean much to you, but for others, or borderline (or bored?) it might be interesting.

proceeding from that value, the idea put out earlier that it is not worth being concerned about complex ecology because it will grow back eventually is unconvincing because it doesn't take into account that the complexity of an ecosystem is incremental over time, that evolution builds and is built upon layers of ecosystem complexity, and that there is a limited window for life on earth to evolve.

consider that it might be the case that evolution could produce an extraterrestrial life form, an earth diaspora species. it seems to me that life on earth is approaching this potential; be it internal (merkaba-esque) or external (space arks). wiping out the fundament on which these complex systems (eg. us) are thriving (eg. topsoil, hydrological cycle, carbon filters, food chains, etc) will cause the higher orders to crash. then the process has to start over, very slow. if life doesn't evolve into something ET, it all dies when earth is eaten by the sun. we might be the only evolutionary thread that has a shot at this.

if the life that has evolved on earth never makes it past the suns use-by-date because the primate phase that showed such evolutionary promise couldn't quite get over their base instinct to gratuitously and excessively self-serve at the expense of the life systems of their planet, what a stupid waste of a brief amazing spark of life and beauty in this corner of the cosmos that would be.

i can see no reason not to try and give nature more time in this flowering state, rather than chop it off at the root when its just budding.

Edited by komodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i heard this cool quote thing not to long ago while watching a program on sbs about evolution - extinction is the rule, evolution is the exception.

When you think of how old the world is and all the extinct plants,animals and even "other" humans that have been found in the sands of time, we cannot blame everything on humans. its nature,are humans not part of nature? to me i think its a bit short sighted to think GW is anything new and even worth a mention in the history of the world, if youall know what i mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i heard this cool quote thing not to long ago while watching a program on sbs about evolution - extinction is the rule, evolution is the exception.

When you think of how old the world is and all the extinct plants,animals and even "other" humans that have been found in the sands of time, we cannot blame everything on humans. its nature,are humans not part of nature? to me i think its a bit short sighted to think GW is anything new and even worth a mention in the history of the world, if youall know what i mean.

Have you watched Gore's film? One of the primary tenets is that the level of global warming we are experiencing today is very recent and unprecedented to a vast degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

going on fossil records, we are now in the sixth period of mass extinction life on earth has gone through, and we are doing it simply by killing things one by one or wiping out their habitat. this is separate to climate change, although incidentally both involve clearfelling forests on a terraforming scale.

we actually can blame this sixth great extinction on humans, as it's a direct outcome of the way we have industrialised and the ongoing prioritising of cheap satisfaction of (often manufactured) human wants over biodiversity.

Edited by komodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

komodo, you certainly have the most unique argument Ive ever heard in this debate, I like it a lot :) Something irks me though - seeing as we have become so proficient at adapting our enviroment to suit us, rather than us adapting to our enviroment, I fear the future of human evolution might look something like this:

post-3690-1184117765_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
consider that it might be the case that evolution could produce an extraterrestrial life form, an earth diaspora species. it seems to me that life on earth is approaching this potential; be it internal (merkaba-esque) or external (space arks).

...

if life doesn't evolve into something ET, it all dies when earth is eaten by the sun. we might be the only evolutionary thread that has a shot at this.

if the life that has evolved on earth never makes it past the suns use-by-date because the primate phase that showed such evolutionary promise couldn't quite get over their base instinct to gratuitously and excessively self-serve at the expense of the life systems of their planet, what a stupid waste of a brief amazing spark of life and beauty in this corner of the cosmos that would be.

i can see no reason not to try and give nature more time in this flowering state, rather than chop it off at the root when its just budding.

Very well written. Totally agree with you on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol gamma, that wouldent be so bad :)

maybe human evolution calls for us to destroy the planet in the long term for us to get the tech and knowledge to get the hell of this rock? even as bad the splitting the atom was, it is still part of nature coz it is possible, weve just evolved with the capacity to do so, so it would be a waste not to ride this crazy path were on all the way. if you know what i mean. is that what you where heading at kom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was thinking about you ET theory komodo, problem is that evolution is not evolving towards anything, there is no peak or pinnacle of evolution as the environment is always changing. Survival of the fittest is as it says, what adaptive significance would evolving into a ET have for an organism? Yes alot of extinction is our fault and yes I do think it should be stopped but is it a bad thing? Things are evolving to adapt and many things are perfectly suited to our lifestyle, they are generally called pests or vermin. But yes global warming is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey teo

i'm with you that evolution isn't going anywhere in particular... however, it is going. my idea is that it goes outwards, that there is a tendency toward diversity, a movement away from the centre, embodied in life as evolution. the emergence of 'strange attractors' in complexity theory seems to be related to this tendency. i think its self-organising, bottom-up rather than goal-oriented. life wants to become more diverse, thats the creative impulse.

i'm not one who thinks life is just adaptation for survival, i think there's another whole component of experience, life is an experience, and as such life force motivates for more interesting experiences. evolution into greater complexity, which we see in the world, is driven not just by killing/being killed, but by synergism toward a more diverse and interesting life experience. there's more to life than survival :)

Edited by komodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

global warming is occurring

why?

does it matter?

the response is the same

it irks me that weve been watching a downhill slide of our environmnet nearly 500 years

and now in 2007 everyone gets precious about just one aspect

yes - conserving energy is good

yes all teh shite they recommend ins response is good

but it doesnt make the reasoning right

going green makes sense even without GW- simple economics shows we save money if we are efficient

and the world is in less political turmoil if we arent fighting over oil , or coal , or uranium deposits

so waht with all this fucking time wasting thats been going on?

if they hedge all the public goodwill on an impnding doomsday that is shown to be false theyll squander sentimnet forever

like WMD

or

WOT

all bullshit

nice intent

bullshit reasons

= lost confidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whether people notice this green kick up the arse or that green kick up the arse doesnt matter, as long as they do notice and start taking action, which is what we're seeing now, slow and reluctant though it is here in oz.

it's not just 'global warming' as an isolate issue either. having a popular concept of global environmentalism as a major issue is great and it's implications are broader than whatever that single issue may be. the awareness that humanity is negatively impacting on the living health of our earth is a big conceptual leap for most people and will create a lot of flow-on change once it really sinks in to our cultures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the main thing we must all remember is that, as egoless as it may sound, what ever happens to the planet, to the people and ecosystems, it will live on.

Global warming may be a problem, but like in all the other mass extinctions, man made or not, the planet may suffer abit in the short term, the majority of the people on the planet and maybe even most life forms all together may face a big decline,but the world will live on, just like it always has.

Weather we can find a way to fix GM, or can even be fixed (or even if its real) , the next chapter will always be there. its been there for millions of years and even with all the doomsdayers running around about GM, it will still be there for the next 10 thousand years at least (my grasp of eternity aint the best lol).

Basically my point is,who cares lol. during the last iceage, im sure millions died, yet here we are. too much is being made out of. all this live8 climate shite, whats that? a money maker.

I used to be more concerned about it, but hey lifes to short too short to worry about shit we get bombarded with in the news. lest we forget the laws that will be forced upon us sooner or later if the men in charge get their way, well be seeing climate police, electricity will be monitored, just another way for the weak and concerned to be controlled.

That said, im not an eco terrorist where to go and throw trash into the streets and stuff, i do what i can but thats it, im not going to change my whole life style because corporate farks are t he ones that are really screwing the planet,yet they want the peasents ( us ) to fit the bill and feel guilty for the corps that pump out more c02,toxic waste and other crap on purpse just to get rid of it so they can continue to fark everyone around.

Anyways thats my rant, sorry if its too long and i dont mean to offend any ultra-eco friendlies but thats just my opinion.

(now to find the wmds they say are in iraqistan) :P

Edited by Jesus On Peyote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm JOP i don't get it! if you don't care why do you "do what you can"? it doesnt make sense. if you really want to do what you can, you change your lifestyle, because its doing and you can :) as well as the direct impact your use of products and resources has, your consumption patterns also influence those around you. barring some kind of dictatorship, cultural change occurs by osmosis, a bit at a time.

check out my earlier post about limited time on earth. it won't always live on.

also, the bit of the rant where you worry that green politics will mean abuse of the disempowered, i can't see why you assume that. the prevailing discussion in terms of renewable energy is one of decentralisation, whereby the generation and thus control over energy moves away from centralised authorities and put into the hands of those using it - local communities, households, etc.

the idea that a green future is authoritarian assumes that environmentalism will have to be forced on people, who are thus somehow "naturally unnatural"?! i think given a clear view of natural systems, real health, and harmony between people and their environment, people will naturally incline towards green solutions. we see this happening nominally already; the lip service to triple bottom lines, DIY eco-shows on tv, organic products in supermarkets, images of nature in marketing, environmentally audited investment groups, enviro policies centre stage in the federal election, etc. etc.

Edited by komodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kom,

I see what your saying lol.When i say i "dont care" i mean i dont care much for the big GM hysteria.That doesent mean i dont care about the situation.

What i mean by doing what i can is that i do what i am able to do in my circumstances, without the pressure and increasing stigma against people like myself by not going "all the way".

Like 10 years ago, environmentally friendly programs where keeping the streets clean by not littering, planting trees and being genially friendly to the immediate environment, if thats understandable.

Now when people start saying i better buy a hybrid car, set up self sufficient sola power and other such stuff thats going too far, mainly because for me and im sure others too, its very bloody expensive to redo ones whole life in a matter of years,add ontop of that the growing stigma to people that cant afford such green "luxuries". sure if i was loaded my house (rented) would be as self sufficient as possible. so i care, but i dont lol. i care about what i can personally do,but when it comes to stuff i have little possibility of doing then i cant help it.

About your post about earth not always living on, thats understandable, all planets must die but that in itself is nature and a fare distance away (in my opinion) weather its the sun devouring us or us devouring the earth.

And as for the environmentalism dictators, that was just me being paranoid again lol, i remember reading in the paper a few months back legeslators where thinking of new energy taxes and stuff like that, i donno which country it was in, and im not sure how its moved on and who knows, with water restriction, one day we might be having energy restriction with fines\even jail depending on how bad it could get, but we always gotta be wary of t he governments (sometimes maybe unjustfully) but still needs to be some cynics to ponder the future.

i DO hope your right about the decentralization when green power gets more out there and individualally ran.

Anyway, in closing the environment is good and i do what i can to help, buy i refuse to go stur crazy over somthing that may just be a natural cycle, and if its not, god help us all lol. ( or the goverment should buy us energy effeciant stuff, coz i sure as hell cant afford it atm, so i do what i can with what im givien :)

Cheers, sorry for the long post

EDIT, just reread revs post few posts up, and pretty much agree with him in that sense

Edited by Jesus On Peyote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with JOP and rev totally. Me having not seen al gores movie I cant comment but according to my friends at uni (ecologists, botanists and zooologists) there is a lot of properganda in it, and thats what we dont need.

I agree komodo that organisms seek experiences but one cannot pass all experience to ones children, also you can really only worry about experience when food, shelter and sex (survival) have been taken care of that would make evolution to experience secondary to survival. But besides that we have gone to space, maybe it is us who will do as you say. Animals attempt to change habitats to help themselves, that is what we are doing but that doesnt mean we have to fuck everything as we do it. Its all natural. I dont think there is any culture on earth that hasnt greatly affected their surrounds, aboriginals for instance are almost solely responsible for extinction of mega fauna and for the flora we have today, they destroyed more rainforest then we have thought their burning off and probably produced a significant amount of CO2. Anyway lets all be nice to mother earth :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the idea that a green future is authoritarian assumes that environmentalism will have to be forced on people, who are thus somehow "naturally unnatural"?! i think given a clear view of natural systems, real health, and harmony between people and their environment, people will naturally incline towards green solutions. we see this happening nominally already; the lip service to triple bottom lines, DIY eco-shows on tv, organic products in supermarkets, images of nature in marketing, environmentally audited investment groups, enviro policies centre stage in the federal election, etc. etc.

Not sure if that initial comment is a reference to our earlier discussion, but I think its important to point out that I never said or even implied a green future was necessarily authoritarian (nor do I think it), all I said was that I didn't want a green future that is authoritarian... subtle but very big difference there.

*edit* just realized it was overtly directed to JoP, but thought I'd leave it there for clarification anyway.

Do you think the green marketing messages you've mentioned are mainly a result of the awakening of people's reason as they examine environmental issues, or just more innovative ways to make money and market products/policies to egocentric consumers?

Edited by IllegalBrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if markets are using environmentalism to sell products it's an outcome of a changing culture of ideas, not a driving force (although once it's weight is in play it can tip the balance for mass-media-fed consumers). eco-friendly advertising and corporate activity is coming very late to the party, practically had to be dragged here kicking and screaming. equally, people didn't reason their own way here, dedicated activists and researchers have finally broken through a glass ceiling into common knowledge, forcing large amounts of evidence through the gap, until it's become implausible (if not impossible) to ignore. it's through this emergence of information that has been suppressed for decades in both the public and business spheres that cultural change is taking place, rather than a recent strategem.

green ideology generally isn't driven by additional profit, although it is become competitive to meet consumer desire for environmentally responsible products. profit is always maximised for the particular level of economic activity taking place, whatever the conceptual basis for consumer desire is; that is, more goods are not being sold, just (at least nominally) more responsible goods. the shift in culture we are seeing now is beyond market-driven consumption, it's a growing honesty in the relationship between consumers and their impact on the environment, an inability to continue to hide from the ramifications of our lifestyle. sure there are still lies and manipulations taking place, but less and less as information about the state of environmental crisis leaks through the gaps in the business-as-usual facade and exposes more of the true impacts of consumer culture on the global environment.

justification for criticism of environmentalism based on a cynicism that most green advocacy is based on profit-taking is a marginal discussion; generally speaking, environmental technology and practise increase the costs of production and decrease price competitiveness against non-environmentally sound products and services (this is the primary objection to making the transition to a green economy). also, the history of environmentalism has been one of disestablishmentarialism [ :) ] low incomes, DIY, grass roots, etc. and the current high profile it is enjoying is an outcome of that history.

the ecological imperative is not a conspiracy of nouveau-eco capitalists, it's an evaluation based on the hard truth about what humans are doing to the earth. all that's new is that it's gotten so bad that people are unable to pretend it isn't happening any more and the cultural, political and economic machinery is struggling to adapt in time, whilst trying to preserve existing power relationships.

Edited by komodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if markets are using environmentalism to sell products it's an outcome of a changing culture of ideas, not a driving force

This is how I mostly see it as well, as an interplay bewteen consumers and the corporations that pander to them via analysis of market trends. Admittedly, it does lead me to be fairly cynical, I just can't shake it in relation to advertising campaigns by big business/big government.

justification for criticism of environmentalism based on a cynicism that most green advocacy is based on profit-taking is a marginal discussion; generally speaking, environmental technology and practise increase the costs of production and decrease price competitiveness against non-environmentally sound products and services (this is the primary objection to making the transition to a green economy).

I don't think most green advocacy is based on profit-taking, not sure if that was what you are saying there or not. I understand that a genuine move towards environmental friendly products and practices is costly and I also am aware of the objections of capitalist economists to a green economy, but it is precisely these things that fuel my cynicism when I see multinationals jumping on the green friendly wagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×