How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Joined: Jan 07, 2005 Posts: 139 Location: Mpls, MN, USA
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:24 am Post subject: Re: BBC talks about sustainability
Thanks for posting the BBC article by Peter Day. I think it makes a number of good points very well.
The most significant point it makes, I think, is summed up by Lester Brown at the end:
"The one resource we are really running out of is time."
This sums it all up very, very well.
I think we should contemplate ways of speeding up our personal and collective responses to global climate change, resource depletion, and resource war.
Sustainability cannot be won by gunfire. Sustainability cannot be gained by waiting for the government and corporatist culture to be transformed. Sustainability cannot be attained in isolation.
Sustainability requires radical change at all levels: personal, community, political, and corporate. We must all work in all of these areas as best we can. Sometimes our individual efforts will lead us to focus exclusively on individual or small community or political areas, but we need all efforts to achieve peaceful change. _________________ pedaling for peace and ecojustice -- Gary
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: Re: BBC talks about sustainability
TommyJefferson wrote:
The BBC has some very goofy ideas about the environment. Consider this article about Enviro-Cultists...
Stupid article, but what can you expect from the media?
Quote:
We may think that hill farming or low-input arable farming are good because they create ecological niches for wildlife and landscapes which are visually pleasing; but they represent profound changes to the "natural" environment.
Quote:
"We"? Who the Fark is "We"?
Organic farming creates as much dislocation to the ecology of a field as does more conventional management.
So, let us get our perspective right.
Quote:
Again, "Our".
We are as much a part of Nature as any other species, and we need to stop feeling guilty about our impact on the environment.
This argument is so stupid it makes me want to puke. It points out that modern 'snivelization' can recognize our faults but that we shouldn't take constructive action to rectify the effects, but simply accept our damage-plan and forgive ourselves our lack of vision and aesthetics.
The guy is a lout and so is anyone else who cravenly defends their actions in spite of the consequences on future generations. Guilt is natural under these cirscumstances. The moral philosophy that the highest virtue is your own self-enjoyment is just indefensible. It is not a moral philosophy.
I see attacking "enviro-cultists" as a permutation of the attitude of defeatism- that we can't change, and that we can't find a better way. That we might as well allow, say, Japan to keep turning whales into dog food, or 'accept' organic farming because we can't imagine alternatives to industrial farming practices.
I find the anti-enviromentalist cult of thought to be wholly without merit, utterly devoid of moral purpose, smug, self-centered, shallow, sheltered, cruel, and pointless. Sure, there are silly hippies out there living off the grid and growing organic vegetables and running biodiesel, but they are qualitatively doing something positive to reduce their footprint on the planet while attempting in some way to address their responsibilities toward future generations that will inherit this place.
They are silly, their aesthetics alien to modern-media "standards" of style. They look like 'the other'- easily standing out from the crowd. Its easy to find examples of people who are living better, more meaningful lives than you do and pulling the trigger on them.
Lets take this article in the context of who wrote it:
Quote:
Martin Livermore is an independent consultant, with a background in industry, covering a range of science communication and policy issues.
What industry might this be? The industry of making everyone focus on their own self-fulfillment in spite of the crumbling infrastructures that make life meaningful? What are his possible motives for these arguments? To convince the public, that after 40 years of fighting for clean water and air, and after getting some traction, its time to ease up and let the coal factories start belching CO2 again?
Examine the conclusion to the article:
Quote:
So, let us get our perspective right.
We are as much a part of Nature as any other species, and we need to stop feeling guilty about our impact on the environment.
Not many of us, given the choice, would encourage the wanton destruction of habitats or species, but surely our first priority must be the needs of poorer members of our own species.
This argument is loaded with hyperbole and implicit contradictions. It doesn't pretend to address or solve anything. It says 'we are a part of nature'- and then qualitively not. It says that we must get over being guilty about destroying nature because we have no choice. Lastly, it patronizes us to accept this Fark of relativism and logical fallacy as a reasonable way of looking at things.
Well, I say this is bullshit. I say this is a man without imagination. I say that this argument is morally bankrupt and defeatist. I say that this article was written merely to appeal to the worst predjudices of the most privileged populations on Earth, in order to encourage the seperation of guilt from accountability, from current actions and future consequences.
This article just proves that the BBC is just as susceptible to printing junk ideas as the NYTimes or FoxNews.
Disgusting and stupid.
The more I think about it, the less true your comment really is:
TommyJefferson wrote:
The BBC has some very goofy ideas about the environment. Consider this article about Enviro-Cultists...
Its this industry consultant that has the goofy ideas, and the article isn't even about 'enviro-cultists'... its about a postmodern attitude of smug self-righteousness, heedless ignorance and moral relativism. The hippies are just a picturesque sideshow attraction to pique the interest of people with mass media-fed standards of taste and convention.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
"We"? Who the Fark is "We"? 
