Eco-terrorismFollow

If you're not doing all you can legally do, then you'd be acting prematurely to go outside the law.

Better?

If you ARE doing everything you can legally do, then 85% of the population has already written you off as a crank so you may as well go for it, I guess.

Just to clarify - I'm not anti-terrorist!! If I were to go terrorist, I'd be going after the human rights abusers - slave trafficers, forced laborists, child labor abusers, etc.

Again with the RLSH meme:

RedPhoenixxxx = EcoBusterMan and his four-legged sidekick LolCat.

It seems to me that eco-terrorism, in the form of destruction, would be harmful to the environment. It still seems a little hypocritical to do something that would produce a large volume of pollution, and waste, to promote a pro-environment agenda. Even if it is a one time burst.

Edited, Apr 30th 2009 1:51pm by NixNot

I got lots of decks of playing cards. Can probably make one or two full decks with them.

And look here! -----> ) (it's an outhouse door symbol)

Slashing the tyres was an example of the lowest possible scale of such a movement. But even this. If tomorrow twenty people in London start slashing all the tyres of the 4x4 they see, it won't bring down the 4x4 industry. But, some enough it'll get picked up by the local media, it will be an inconvenience to 4x4 owners, and it might make one or two people think twice about buying it. Maybe.

But fundamentally, it's a question of scale. If the problem is widely accepted, and this movement is seen as a form of citizen's fightback for the Earth, it could spread. You just need to use your imagination a bit. Think of all the stuff you can shut down simply using the internet. Simply by hacking. 0 pollution caused in the process.



It's not about demands, it's simply about increasing the cost of pollution. Not for everyone, not all the time. But even at a random occurrence, it will have a psychological effect on everyone.



No. Properly done, it's the equivalent of any other resistance movement. Except in this case your fighting something else, pollution. Look, I'm not saying this is *the* solution to global warming. But I can see it happening one day. I can see having an effect. And it would get my support, if properly done.

There are two key problems with your suggestion as I mentioned before. I'm hoping to make them more clear this time. I'm going to give you the broad argument here and then explain it further in response to two of your quotes.
1. Whoever you're attacking, whether it's a company or consumer of a product, will not tend to give in to what you want them to do when you use destructive force. They tend to fight back against it.

2. You're not really decreasing pollution, you're only shifting it around.

1. That's not what would happen. If you went around slashing 4x4 tires it won't cause people who buy/sell (I'm not certain who your target is) to cease doing so, it will cause them to launch a counter assault. They'll ask for increased police protection, buy security services, or do whatever they can to protect they current activities. Since what you're doing is entirely illegal and they would be in turn acting legally it is fully reasonable that they would gain the protection required. You waste their resources, so they expend more resources to protect their current activities. You actually cause more waste.

If I litter, and you beat me up every day for doing so and threaten to continue beating me if I continue littering, then you know what I don't do? I don't give in to your demands. I call the cops, they drive over to your house at 20 miles per gallon, and arrest you for assault and battery.

2. Yes, but you're only increasing the cost of pollution for a few companies. You would have to target every company in that industry to hope to make a difference.

Let's say there are 10 companies in the logging industry which are entirely identical. If you attack 5 of them, forcing those 5 to switch to eco-friendly techniques like replanting trees in order to save costs (because as long as they pollute you will sabotage them), then those 5 companies incur extra expenses. There are general switch costs involved as well as eco-friendly techniques being more expensive than non-friendly ones (otherwise they would have switched without incentives from you). So those 5 companies lose profitability, lose market shares, lose market capitalization.

What happens then is that the other 5 firms you haven't attack now have a competitive advantage. They are suddenly more profitable than their rivals so they can gain market share, grow their businesses, and take over operations the over 5 now eco-friendly companies gave up.

You haven't decreased pollution, you've only changed who is doing it. That's the problem. Efforts to reduce pollution have to be industry wide to truly be effective. Rogue eco-terrorists do not have the manpower, resources, or organization required to assault an entire industry. Furthermore, you would have to constantly keep up efforts. If at any point the threat of sabotage disappeared companies would be inclined to start polluting again because the cost to them is now lower.

No. A resistance movement targets one entity and seeks to harm/change/revolutionize that one entity. The difference with an entire industry is that there are multiple players in a competitive environment. By hurting one company you serve to benefit another company.

The environment isn't actually helped. You only change who does the polluting, not how much polluting is done. It only seems like you've made gain. That is why this is like an internet petition. People get to feel good about themselves without actually making a difference.

Edited, Apr 30th 2009 5:11pm by Allegory

Edited, Apr 30th 2009 5:14pm by Allegory

That is the problem with zeal. When you are willing to sacrifice anything for your cause sometimes you end up sacrificing the cause itself.

Not sure how economics falls into this, but I'll bite.

You're assuming that the stimulus is actually good for the economy. I don't oppose the stimulus because I want economic collapse, but because I think it's a huge waste of money and will make our economic problems worse (for the most part).

It's less about laws and more about liability and the structural integrity of the tire. You shouldn't make a bond repair on a part of the tire that moves laterally several centimeters every time you turn.

Right. Fortunately we can win through 'conventional warfare' and in fact have the greatest chance of success when pursuing that method. Since you have not directly contested my assertions about the ineffectivesness of REd's proposed plan and you have said "It really doesn't matter if it works," I am going to operate under the assumption that you agree with the two points I made to Red about why his plan is ineffective.

So since you agree that terrorism here is largely ineffective all I need prove is that terrorism actually hurts the group's goal or that an alternative is far more effective. Both happen to be true.

Eco-terrorism hurts the goal because they help marginalize legitimate and lawful supporters of eco-friendly practices as radical terrorists or sympathizers. Terrorism can work when public opinion views the illegal activities are necessary and righteous. Eco-terrorists are largely viewed, by Americans at least, as drugged up tree hugging hippies without jobs. They are not viewed positively and the public certainly does not vastly support their illegal and destructive activities.

Lawful methods are far more effective. Pushing for legislation which limits polluting will affect an entire industry and is a far more permanent solution than the threat of sabotage. Legal protest and campaigns help sway public opinion against heavy polluters, either causing them to not purchase from those companies or pushing for legislation themselves. Creating charities which fund research to lower the costs of eco-friendly technology is far more effective and beneficial than trying to artificially increase the costs of polluting. Funding grants for businesses with green initiatives helps lower switching costs for companies trying to shrink their foot print.

All of those actions are far better than destructive violence which turns public opinion against you and increases current waste.



I cringe when Lelouch plays chess. You do not lead with the king. That is a bad idea. In fact, it is often the absolute worst possible move. I don't believe chess has ever been played correctly in a television drama by characters who are supposed to be skilled in the game.

But in this case it isn't. In fact it often isn't.

None, however, are conventional warfare: ie. a war between nation-states. You can't wage war on pollution anymore than you can drugs, or terrorism (I really do kick *** in advance wars though, not that it matters.)

And you still aren't realizing that I'm Romanticizing the hell out of the practice of terrorism simply because I get hot and bothered whenever I imagine someone struggling against the universal, who and whatever it may be. I can admit this flaw allegory, can you see that? Do you understand why I would like to engage in, or be sympathetic to terrorists, even if everything you have written is true?

Well no, not technically, because pollution and drugs aren't entities with soldiers, artillery, and tanks. But I was fairly certain when you decided to use the term "conventional warfare" you meant it in a more metaphorical sense. I certainly don't believe we can air strike pollution...

I assumed 'conventional warfare' when dealing with a social problem entailed conventional, i.e. legal, recourse. Regardless of what we choose to name it I believe that to combat corporate polluters legal actions are far more effective than illegal actions. I also think I have demonstrated as such here, only you wish to contest anything specific.

I might, but even assuming I did I still favor rational, effective truth. Giving in to one's emotions should be a calculated move to increase one's happiness.

Edited, Apr 30th 2009 8:46pm by Allegory