Eco-terrorismFollow

Do you support/understand the pro-life extremists that attack clinics?

Be it eco-terrorists, or pro-life extremists... the only thing they do is hurt their cause by acting out violently and making middle road people distance themselves from their cause.

No, I had to drop it for increased school work load.

Edited, Apr 30th 2009 10:42pm by Allegory

As long as you continue to believe that, it will remain true.

?

I do. I was poking fun at you giving unspecific advice that happened to immediately follow a post where the person you were criticizing had done just as you desired.

These three things are three different categories of things. Thus if you want to get rid of them, you have to treat them in different ways. Before I get tl:dr, basically you CAN wage war on pollution in a way that you can't on drugs or terrorism. By and large pollution is a SIDE-EFFECT of acquiring or doing other things we want. Most people would be perfectly happy to get those things in a non-polluting way if the original method of manufacture/energy was legislated against. Pretty much everyone who loses a job to old industry would get a new industry job with the right retraining. And the old owners shouldn't be too discomposed by the transition if they've done what every single person with an ounce of financial learning has done and diversified their investments.

As an example of what is possible, Combined Heat and Power stations (CHP) use off the shelf technology and natural gas* to drop CO2 emissions from utilities by 70%, while also dropping the cost to the consumer of utilities by 10%. Getting CHP is the trick, and if we want them earlier rather than later, we need legislation

With "Drugs", THEY THEMSELVES are what are wanted and desired. Either we need to discover why** people want what drugs give them, and offer them an equivalent alternative legal substitute, or we need to minimize the harm that drugs, their side-effects, and their "cuts" do.

Terrorism is a METHOD of bringing about a desired political change used by people who feel powerless. It should be noted that the vast majority of men and women targeted and successfully recruited to be modern suicide bombers fill at least two of three criteria: they are illiterate, they are very very poor, and/or they are fundamentally religious. Literacy generally effects an upswing in financial comfort, health and ability to participate in civic activities constructively. Dare I say that literacy also exposes one to new ideas, and helps critical thinking processes, making one less prone to extremism. Tackling illiteracy in troubled areas is probably a way of tackling future terrorism at the root.



*natural gas often supplemented by bioreactors using modern pyrolytic kilns, and solar cells.

**Happiness, a moment of feeling "alright", a way of relaxing, a way of loosing inhibitions to have good experiences that one could not otherwise bring oneself to ask for, energy, euphoria, and/or interesting mind/perception altering experiences...

Edited, May 1st 2009 2:06am by Aripyanfar

Maybe. It's far from certain, though. From a PR point of view, it might be better for the company to announce that they will switch to a greener method of production. Because this is what we're heading towards. This movement would simply be a way to speed up the process. To raise the costs of pollution.

I understandw hat you're saying, I just don't think the response will necessarilly be as uniform, or as predictable, as you make it sound.



Again, maybe. Maybe not. Even if we follow your prediction, this will raise their costs considerably. Which is the outcome we'd want. Secondly, they probably won't get increased police protection. It's just no possible to put a police officer by every 4x4, or every 4x4 dealer. Either way, the cost of polluting is raised.



Yes, but I also raise the cost of polluting. Which is the whole point, as the OP clearly says.

Secondly, read this. Damage to property was held as lawful because of global warming.



a) No you don't, and b) that's a gbaji analogy.



Except they're not. This scenario simply does not exist in real life. You will not have 10 logging companies which are entirely identical. Some will pollute more than others. You start at the top, and work your way to the bottom. You go for the biggest polluter, and work your way down. If your scenario applies, and 5 companies become more eco-friendly, then great. You start targetting those that take their place as the biggest polluter. In other words, you adapt to changing realities.

Once again, I'm not stopping global warming, I'm increasing the costs. That's it.



On the long-term, the environment is helped. If there is any public support for the cause, and in time there probably would be, being "targetted" would on its own be seen as an indictement that you're hurting the planet. It would be awful PR for the company. The aim is not to single-handedly change the whole world's industry, it's the speed up the process by increasing the cost. And, surely, even you can't deny that this would happen, sometimes, in some places.

You might not agree with the idea, and I respect that. I'm not seriously saying that this is what I'm going to do. It was an idea to stimulate discussion. But you have to admit that done properly, on a big scale, it would be infinitely more powerful than an internet petition.

And to be honest, if the alternative is this kind of shit:



Then surely my idea is good. Surely it's better than this apathetic, defeatist, mind-numbingly stupid drivel. You always have the option of sitting on your *** making retarded comments. *That's* the equivalent of an internet petition.

I might have to take back what I said about your cat, phoenix

Well there you go and ruin all the tension and innuendo, but yeah, basically.

Finely crafted dialectic gets me hot and bothered.

***

6 am is late enough, I'm out

Edited, May 1st 2009 5:29am by Pensive

I always thought eco-terrorism was one of the more laughable forms of terrorism. Some residual image of people breaking into zoos to rescue chimps. It always seemed rather silly.