Green Geeks? 244
sigmatt asks: "I've often wondered where Slashdot readers stand on environmental
issues. This might be considered a little off topic for this site, but so many programmers that I know, including myself, are outdoorsy
people in their other life, and I'm interested in the opinion of the wider geek community. The local issue in my part of the world at the moment is logging of old growth forests, primarily used for wood chips. The wood chips are not very valuable (as low as AU$7 a ton - that's US$3.50!), but it
is the easy option - and I suspect it leads to the highest profits and quickest company growth. Unfortunately, our wonderful forests - with
so many potential future uses (fine furniture, tourism, and, of course, my own hiking trips) are being wasted away at an alarming rate. Recently
the tactics of those opposing the practice of woodchipping our old growth forests have turned to attacking the tourism industry in order to try to make a government who won't listen change its mind. For example this site
ripping off
another site, and the posting of a controversial bill board in Sydney
airport. What do you think about these approaches?"
Environmentalism (Score:2, Funny)
Pfft. I drive an SUV, and not one of those wimpy, fuel-sipping RAV-4s or something, but an older model powerwagon. It gets awful gas milage, (1 highway, 0 city) and I often drive alone when I could take public transportation for free.
I smoke several packs of ciggarettes a day, and litter constantly. I dump used oil in storm drains, and I pee in sinks and miscellaneous corners. I fart constantly, adding to the vapid air pollution of my home city, Los Angeles. I spit everywhere, and I never wash my clothes.
To top it all off, I never recycle, and constantly throw away things that could easily be reused. I generate so much refuse that I usually must stuff trash in my neighbor's recepticles, as mine is almost always overflowing.
Yes sir! I'm your average slashdot user.
The silver lining is... (Score:2)
Why, he/she has fertilized this thread already!
(kidding)
Re:Environmentalism (Score:3, Funny)
Well, that is environmentally sound, at least. The amount of water and power used in washing (and drying) clothes is really quite shocking.
What hysteria! (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/about.html
The more CO2 we create, the greener the earth will get! Duh! Then you'll have plenty of forests to hike in! Just listen to the trustworthy oil companies you sandal wearing pinko and get back in line.
Earth in the balance (Score:5, Insightful)
This balancing issue, coupled with the more emotional conservation for conservation's sake, is a hot one in the United States. We now have a government tilted towards oil-and-gas-and-timber interests, which our my interests, too, as I am one of the consumers of this stuff. But I think they have the balance terribly wrong, and that we will a terrible price in lost resources, greater pollution, and even war (to safeguard oil supplies).
So, (1) what's man's cut of the pie; and (2) what fraction do we eat now, what later; and (3) how efficiently do we burn it. The first question is philosophical; the latter two economic.
How does this relate to technology? Well, I suppose reduce, reuse, recycle applies as much as elsewhere. Keep the number of gadgets in check, buy energy-efficient ones, and turn them off when not in use; try to rehabilitate equipment when practical; and finally recycle materials to the extent possible, with reputable firms (see the recycling thread today). Recycling is the last line of defense.
And turn off the computer to take a walk now and then.
Re:Earth in the balance (Score:2)
That something would be cockroaches. Ever tried to get them out of your kitchen?
And you forgot to cite authority for the pie being all ours. Anyway, "all ours" begs the question of what we think should be reserved for Mother Nature, leaving one running in circles. "All ours" does force humans to consume everything for their benefit alone.
Zodiac (Neal Stephenson) covers this (Score:4, Interesting)
* you need treehuggers for building awareness, nasty people for sabotage, scientists for evidence, and guerilla PR people to counter large PR/legal budgets. All have to be environmentally motivated, clearly not all are the same psych type. So geek activistist are handy for several roles.
* it's a more bitter fight than you might think
* there aren't always easy answers
* all his novels build to an apocalpyse (the Big U, Zodiac, and Snow Crash, in order, each widened the area of potential destruction) and, hey, just like his endings, there's rarely total victory for either side.
Anyway, it's a great primer for _effective_ dealing with these mega-complex environmental damage issues, for those who think it's as easy as putting up a billboard or doing a few phone calls.
Re:Zodiac (Neal Stephenson) covers this (Score:2)
Re:Zodiac (Neal Stephenson) covers this (Score:2)
"Environmentalists" OPPOSING a cellphone tower that puts out 1/10th the radiation as the one it replaces just shows how idiocy their "Science" is.
AS to the moral goading, I haven't seen it from environmentalists-- anyone with any scientific background discounts these kooks and terrorists.
The ultimate personal contribution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The ultimate personal contribution (Score:2)
Re:The ultimate personal contribution (Score:2)
Re:The ultimate personal contribution (Score:2)
I think the ultimate contribution is to raise the kind of children that are not only tolerant and intelligent, but can keep their mouth shut in a movie theater - that would be a miracle-level contribution.
Personally, I think being a parent is overrated - anybody can become a parent, given a partner. Parents that help their children reach their potential and become well-adjusted parents and members of society are the most under-rated resource we have - if they still exist anymore.
Re:The ultimate personal contribution (Score:2)
Oh yeah, my wife and I have two psycho killer children! Talk about limiting population growth!
But seriously, if you're an intelligent, environmental person with good health, the best thing for the environment is probably to have as many children as possible. Not all humans are a net detriment to the environment. Some are actually a net positive.
Re:The ultimate personal contribution (Score:2)
However, it should be noted that your "one-child" in an industrialized culture consumes and pollutes at a rate of about 100 times that of a child in a non-industrialized one.
Other posters at this level have pointed out quite well that you can mitigate this by raising the child with an awareness of these issues, and win in the long-run.
$3.50/ton? (Score:2)
Shit, it costs $3.50 to get some pimple faced teenager to deliver a pizza! And they don't even have any heavy equipment!
-- Bob
Fatherly wisdom.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Son, there are rights and wrongs, there are normal people and extremists. Thankfully the normal people prevail, but without the extremeists, nobody will keep the normal people in check. Though I don't agree with the tatics of the ACLU, we need them. They keep us in check."
I think my father's statement applies to the ACLU, Tree huggers, and every left/right wing extremeist bozo out there.
So in essence, I think you are silly for hugging the trees, but thank you for hugging the trees. And to answer the question, this geek could care less.
Re:Fatherly wisdom.. (Score:2)
And the gun nuts. I don't really want to own a gun, but all those people *with* guns provides the big benefit of gun ownership -- extreme difficulty for any power to acquire power over the government and then move to a dictatorship -- for me already.
And just about every other extremist group out there. Even Christian lobbyist groups probably have some benefit, though I can't think of what it might be at the moment.
Re:Fatherly wisdom.. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a mistake to think that the ACLU are extremists. They appear to be because they take on extremely unpopular cases. There is a reason for this: Extreme, unpopular cases are the thin end of the wedge; the kind of cases where the defendent is so unpopular that people will sit still or even applaud when our basic rights are eroded. Then those bad decisions become precedents, and it becomes easier to abrogate our rights the second time, and the third...
The ACLU, by protecting the rights of horrible and unsavory people, are protecting your rights from the most insidious kind of threat.
-1 Flamebait on the MQR standard (Score:5, Funny)
I wish we could mod articles--I'd surely put this one as "-1 Flamebait".
Failing that, there should be a new category "Rile Slashdot" (or maybe just "Foodfight!") for questions like this. As far as I'm concerned, it falls in the same category as:
In other words, I think the article is flamebate.
-- MarkusQ
+1, Funny (Score:2)
I know that, like me, most slashdot readers prefer emacs to any of the other so-called editors. But there must be some weirdos out there using the other crud. I'd be interested in hearing how you justify it.
Hehe. I mean, this is so egregious that it's awesome.
Is the US the best country ever, or what?
Probably not that exciting here, but assuming it isn't too unsubtle, there's probably enough kuro5hin crew here to start a huge war.
Who has better orgasms, men or women? I'm interested in the average slashdot readers' view.
Okay, I actually laughed out loud after this one. A masterpiece.
I don't know how to program, but I'm considering an open source program to protect the rights of the music industry, with the eventual goal of selling my country to Microsoft. Can anyone give me some tips on how to start?
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
And now for something completely different... (Score:2, Informative)
One of the first posts (a troll) was about the US Green party; Australia, also has a Greens Party [greens.org.au] (who are just now starting to look up on their fortunes as other, more established parties splinter [theage.com.au] and stagnate). Germany's Greens are of course part of their Federal Coalition Government.
In answer to the original poster, green activism is great, and it's good to see people getting good at it (eg, the high quality billboard at Syd. airport). Any projects for geeks to get involved in? websites that need designing, mailing lists that need setting up, that could be a useful thing for
I'm another (Score:3, Insightful)
Western civillisation has made some great advances in protecting us from the dangers and deprivations we face from nature. Shelter, food production, health services, social order, etc. The downside is that we tend to become disconnected from the natural world, seeing it as a completely controllable resource to bend to our will. The actions of the majority are unconcious of the consequences.
I am the ACT coordinator of The Ecodemocrats [democrats.org.au] and recently held a successful public forum on No Waste by 2010 [act.gov.au]. After contemplating my career recently, I have decided that I am not going to spend the next half of my working life in a cubicle in front of a computer. I have applied to enrol for a part-time BSc (Resource & Environmental Management) [anu.edu.au]. I am keen to find out more about "Sustainablilty" as a sensible approach replacing "Sustainable Development" with a synthetic approach and how it can influence our current and future society.
Personally, we are a one-car family, using public transport where possible. Recently I have bought a bicycle that meets a large amount of my non-commuter travel needs.
Re:I'm another (Score:2)
Hey, if you want to be in tune with nature, notice that when the sheep population is high, and the wolf population low, the wolf population explodes, and when its big and the sheep population is small, they die off.
Take some economics classes- look at market economics. IF you really want to help the environment (rather than just get more burocrap control over people) use market forces to do so.
Don't try to force people to do things that are not in their best interest-- make it profitable.
For instance, STOP subsidizing logging on public land, sell the land and then paper recycling will be a lot more profitable.
You have given up your car- that's fine, but if you are thinking other people "Should" then you are anti - human rights, and you're going to make a piss poor environmentalist.
Figure out how to make it profitable, and you will be harnessing the forces of nature, rather than trying to defy them.
Re:I'm another (Score:2)
It looks like you think loggers and farmers who accept massive governments subsidies to do wasteful things should stop, right?
So why shouldn't this guy think that car owners should get a similar clue about their subsidized waste?
You can help right now (Score:5, Insightful)
Replace bad habits with good ones.
Re:You can help right now (Score:2)
No, having government controlled energy companies creates enormous amounts of pollution.
IF the government wasn't involved then no electricity would require air pollution.;
This country has enough natural gas to run every city off of it, burning clean, with no pollution (After scrubbing.)
But we don't have that because gas taxes are so high. If the government weren't trying to regulat the car industry, the oil industry would pump the natural gas out (Rather than burning it off, or pumping it back into the ground) when they get oil and we could have clean energy supply.
More often than not the government WORSENS environmental situations by ignoring secondary effects of their policies... maybe cause none ofh tem read any economics after Marx.
Re:You can help right now (Score:2)
Re:You can help right now (Score:2)
Don't take my word for it, look into it. In prudhoe bay, one of our largest finds, they seperate out the NG and pump it back into the ground. The fires you see at oil refineries at the smoke stacks are often NG they are burning off (though other types of plants also burn other stuff off to reduce pollution)
The thing about economics is you have to actually study it- its not really useful for soundbites.
Re:You can help right now (Score:2)
This country has enough natural gas to run every city off of it, burning clean, with no pollution (After scrubbing.)
And why would they be doing the scrubbing if they weren't required to do so,
And how is it that CO2 isn't pollution?
Recycling Paper Is Harmful (Score:2)
I think the article was in Inc. Magazine.
Does anyone here know anything about that?
Re:Recycling Paper Is Harmful (Score:2)
Don't worry, that won't stop the socialists from trying to pass laws requiring the use of recycled paper.
After all, if its bad for the environment, they're all for it! That's why they're called "environmentalists".
Re:Recycling Paper Is Harmful (Score:2)
Yes and no: Recycling Paper Is Harmful (Score:2)
Recycling paper, especially mixed (non-white) paper is a dirty business. The paper has to be broken down into pulp, polluting water, and worst must be deinked with bleaches, which produces nasty stuff like dioxin. Mixed paper and newspaper is much dirtier than office paper. Recycled paper can't quite replace virgin paper because recycling breaks down fibers (this is why shopping bags are always made from virgin wood -- strength) and the very nicest office papers are at least partially cotton (hold a sheet up to the light to look for a watermark).
But
A funny thing happened while I was growing up. When I was a kid, junk newspaper was worth money. When I was a grownup, you had to pay to have it removed and recycled (although in many places this costs a lot less than outright disposal). Supply and demand. But how quick are we to say the problem is pointless recycling, rather than to question why we have so much newspaper? When I was a kid we were taught to recycle (then it sounded novel, but Americans were GREAT recyclers during the material shortages of WWII). Now kids are taught reduce, reuse, recycle. This applies to office paper -- it is many times better not to use a piece of paper than to recycle it. What happened to that paperless office? Why do so many people print out all of their email? Anyway, recycling is the last line of defense, not the first.
Last note
Here in Virginia we have very good curbside recycling, and everything else goes to a waste-to-energy incinerator. Now, I'm not willing to take it on faith this is the perfect arrangement, and would like to see a study assessing what a sheet of paper does for us Virginians going to recycling rather than incineration. Assume nothing -- there are private and political scams in recycling as much as anywhere else.
Don't blame me, I voted for Nader... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, the Greens are rather extreme, but ultimately I find their extremeness the least harmful of the possible choices.
The democrats want to take away our guns. That would lead to horrible results, as it would take away the true power from the hands of the people and into the hands of the government. They want to keep draconian drug laws. Not only are these laws unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, they affect directly what I can and cannot do. They will appoint Supreme Court justices who tend to take away state rights. They generally stand for the death penalty. The anti-terrorism bills they pass take away basic freedoms of Americans.
The republicans are no better in some areas, like terrorism and drug laws, and are worse in some others. They want to implement school vouchers, which will destroy the public schools which both of my parents teach in, by taking away the smarter and more wealthy kids and leaving all the poor dumb ones. They are generally lenient towards monopolies, unless those monopolies happen to be labor unions. They tend to be less aware of economic bads like pollution which need to be mitigated through taxes. They tend to favor making the income tax system even more regressive than it already is. They want to make unconstitutional abortion laws which fly in the face of the Commerce Clause.
The libertarians are probably the most dangerous of them all. They want to keep government regulation of the monetary system while removing all checks on economic bads and monopolies. They want a free for all with regard to drugs such that it will no longer be possible to determine what is safe and effective. They want personal possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Needless to say for most, they would destroy our country.
The greens have their own crazy ideas, but I don't think any of them would destroy our country. They want tough discrimination laws. While I disagree on principle, because I think anyone who wants to be a racist should be free to do so, I personally am not a racist, and stopping discrimination isn't exactly a bad thing. They want to limit or eliminate the use of nuclear power plants. While I feel that as long as the power plant pays taxes which pay to dispose of the economic bads they create they should be allowed to stay, I don't think it would be that big of a deal if the price of energy went up a little bit. Yeah, we'd probably see some inflation, but inflation isn't such a bad thing unless you have a lot of cash, and I don't. They want a high minimum wage. Again, I disagree on principle, but I don't think it's going to hurt society if we pay our burger flippers a little more. And if a higher minimum wage actually does cause higher unemployment (I doubt it would, but would just cause higher burger prices), then that would be quickly repealed, and no real harm would be done (since there would be unemployment available in the mean time).
So basically while I disagree with the Greens on a lot of issues, I don't think they're significant enough to override the places where I strongly agree with them. Drug laws, tax justice, political reform, state power, free speech, environmental importance (though not their precise handling of it, I favor economic stimulation rather than legislative), national debt, trade, anti-trust enforcement, etc.
Actually my biggest fear about the greens is their tendency to be overly pacifist with regard to foreign diplomacy. And that's the single reason why even though I did vote for Nader I really didn't want him to actually win. But in reality, if he had won, I'm sure that he would have chosen a strong cabinet which would have made up for most of his weaknesses in this regard.
well (Score:2)
Practical, non-radical, everyday environmentalism. (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Replace your lightbulbs with compact fluorescents. Yeah, some of them suck, but not all of them. Several brands are indistinguishable from incandescents. They are available dimmable, 3-way, R30 and R45 reflectors, etc... and they use around 1/5 the power of incandescents of the same brightness.
2. Turn off your PC when you're not there. Yeah, it's gonna kill your d.net stats, but every bit helps. Leave your server box up, but do you really need all five of those desktops on?
3. Lower your thermostat 1 degree from where it sits now in winter, and raise it 1 degree in the summer.
4. Insulate your house and water heater well.
For extra credit:
5. Consider a reasonably efficient car as your next purchase. I have a Civic HX-- gets about 40mpg. Other options: Civic (also available as a hybrid), Jetta TDI, Toyota Prius, Ford Escape HEV, etc... Your car uses as much power as your house. This is a good place to cut down. But you don't even have to go this far-- if everybody picked a vehicle that got 1 or 2mpg better than their last, we'd all be better off. So step up to a cleaner car, but there's no need to go straight for a 1-person go-kart powered by your sense of self-satisfaction.
6. Look for more efficient refrigerators, water heaters, AC, heaters, washing machines, dryers, and so forth. When yours wear out, consider a cleaner model.
POLL: THERMOSTATICS (Score:2)
BTW, the Philips Earthlight series are the best CFL's I've tried so far. Remember CFL's and very different from conventional humming/flickering/cold-sensitive fluorescents. Also, the CFL's only really make sense in applications where they are on a LOT, if you hope to recoup their purchased price and the greater environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal.
*
I would like to know, whoever is listening, what real people set their real thermostats to, summer and winter? Where do you live? Do you use a setback thermometer bill? What's your worst summer electric (A/C) bill and winter gas/oil/coal (heat) bill? If you have electric heat, well, how scary is your winter electric bill?
I live in N.VA (across from DC), with relatively mild summers and winters. Electricity is cheap (~4/kwh), I think natural gas about average. Thermostat is a setback, 82F summer, 67F winter (you get used to it, really!). Furnace is 78% efficient gas, A/C is new SEER 10 IIRC.
Electric bill topped out around $80 this summer's record-breaking heat wave; and gas is normally $100-200, worst ever was near $300 during the gas price spike. Our house is being renovated by me, and the state of insulation is atrocious, yet our bill tends to be lower than other people's -- so I'm wondering if I'm cruel to my family setting the thermostat. They only turn blue occasionally.
Well, that's probably too much info -- but discuss amongst yourselves....
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:3, Informative)
Duh. This is as meaningful as the comparison "Nike pollutes more than my local shoe store". Well, FUCKING DUH. They're a lot bigger.
The US government is bigger than the biggest corporation, so it's not really surprising that they would pollute the most. It's still completely meaningless, though, and you quote no source either.
Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.
You're saying that the entirety of corporate pollution is less that the pollution of the federal government? I seriously doubt that. Let's see some sources.
Most geeks are actually libertarians, though the geeks on slashdot seem to be mostly socialists
Pure speculation. My experience (a programmer, not a server admin) is that most are socialists with some libertarians, but I live in Multnomah County, Oregon, which is probably one of the most socialist-friendly counties in the country (7% voted Nader in 2000), so my estimates are as useless as yours.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Of COURSE that's an oxymoron. ALL Libertarians and libertarians believe in capitalism.
Socialists, having had the name "communism" become unusable, and "liberal" being diluted from the pure socialism they want, now go by a lot of label, and will coopt label-- any socialist who calls himself a libertarian is a LIAR.
Socialism at its core, violates the NOIF which is the core principle of libertarianism. You CANNOT have socialism without initiating force against people in order to violate their human rights- and you can't have libertarianism if you do.
They are diametrically opposed.
Anyone who says otherwise, is selling a lie.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Yes, effectively, Socialist/socialism, Communism, Liberalism and Democrats are all labels for people who advocate the SAME THING.
Since the "liberals" coopted the name liberalism, the classical liberals (the ones that founded this country) have started calling themselves libertarians.
"Green" is just another word for "Communist"... only instead of the lie of "stop being oppressed by the rich", that old style communists use, they use the "those rich corporate bastards are polluting, vote for us and we'll clean the environment"
Even though they propose nothing that would actually improve the environment in their platform, other than just empty claims to do it.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:3, Insightful)
That depends on the Green. But strong environmental laws fit perfectly well with a capitalist agenda.
How? Consider air pollution. Air is something that we all own. If I build an incinerator for waste disposal, what I'm really doing is selling a decrease in quality of your air. Should I be allowed to do that?
If the answer is yes, then clearly I should have to pay for it. Otherwise we're faced with that classic economic problem, a tragedy of the commons. Of course, some Greens say, "No! No pollution, ever," which is a bit silly. And others say, "Well, ok, but we must regulate."
Other Greens, though, favor market-based mechanisms, like carbon taxes and tradable pollution permits. This is a kind of environmentalism that Adam Smith would like; instead of taxing things that people should do (like earning income) we can tax people for things they shouldn't do (like emitting the particles that contribute to asthma).
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Of course I know that. What's your point?
My only reference to the socialists in my post was about how my county had a lot of support for Nader who ran on a relatively socialist platform.
So, again, what's your point?
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Right- you point out that they have initiated violence against people and thus have become a terrorist cause.
This is just showing their leftist communist stripe-- they really just want power, and will use violence to get it.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
While I also don't support the tree-spiking types, that's not at all the same as violence against people. Fucking up an abandoned logging truck in the middle of the night is not "violence against people" and is most certainly not terrorism, and I think it's a bit of a sham to use that highly loaded term these days against any cause you don't agree with, no matter how chic that has become.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Who do you think is injured or killed when a tree spike violently destroys the machine cutting the tree (as its designed to do)? The operator or any people standing by.
It certainly is terrorism-- whether its violence against people directly or not, it is designed to scare loggers from working and is designed to kill people and machines.
Terrorism is a word that is overrused these days, but that' doesn't make it less appropriate-- before 9/11 they were called "eco-terrorists".
And when GreenWAR RAMS a boat with their boat and causes it to sink they aren't just destrying the boat- they are putting everyone aboard at risk.
That the resort to violence shows their true colors- that the word "Peace" in the name is more important to you than their actual actions shows your gullibility.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:5, Insightful)
Check out what the greens really believe in:
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
Right, don't read their platform [greenpartyus.org]. No, don't do that! Instead listen to some libertarian loony who apparently likes to spend his free time trolling [airspace.bc.ca] non-smokers [google.com] newsgroups [google.com].
And thusly it follows that the Greens obviously want more pollution! Aha! Oh wait, except THEY DON'T [greenpartyus.org].
Yeah, we all know that always works! Let's just disregard the vast discrepency in the ability for an individual versus major polluting corporations in sustaining a legal battle.
Except, oh, this little thing called "democracy". Strangely this "no recourse" actually seems to be working somewhat (now at least it is politically "trendy" to be environmentally conscious).
Right. Let's not disincentivize people from doing this in the first place. Let's incentivize them to cover it up and then wage long inconclusive legal battles with individuals. Hey, it's not my problem! By the way, please tell me how you are going to rationally privatize and proprietize things like air and water quality. How about corporations that just *poof* go bankrupt or vanish, or whose pollution isn't discovered until years after they are around (buried waste, etc.). Yeah, let's just hope this system works.
Right, let's not put crooks in jail because that would hurt the economy! Seriously, if we have to "destroy" "all the large and small companies in the country", I think we are is seriously bad shape.
the rest of the post is just worse drivel not even worth responding to...just wanted to address the Green bashing
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
I think the green party is generally a good thing.. as long as they stick to the real facts...
Enviromentalists right now are the biggest group con-artists and bullshit mongers on earth.
I don't believe that their issue is not valid -- but because they have extremely exaggerated, and flat out lied and twisted stats to make their personal points...
They are just as guilty of FUD as anyone else -- dozens of them said the world would end before the year 2000 (in the 70s).
Please, don't write off enviromentalists, they have a hard battle ahead of them, and they do need a degree of support, but only support those who are honest and truthful..
Check out The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World [amazon.com] and please look up his facts and draw your OWN conclusions...
Let me share a couple of (admittedly hand picked) reviews of the book as posted on Amazon
I can personally vouch for many of the claims which Lomborg makes in this paradigm-shattering book. In the first Earth Day in 1970, while in high school, I was taught, among other things, that, within 10 years or so, the human race would be dying off en masse from overpopulation, depletion of resources, and the polluted environment. Here it is 2002 and none of these predictions have come true--not even close. Instead of a population bomb (Ehrlich), we have stabilization of world population. Instead of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, Lomborg points out that such things as food supply and basic sanitation are enjoyed by a larger and larger fraction of the world's population. Thirty years of oil only means that we have found reserves for the next thirty years. It does NOT mean that we will be out of oil thirty years from now! And, far from being some puppet of corporations, Lomborg remains left-of-center politically. A great book!
Well researched, well documented, and thoughtful. People who believe there are many environmental problems should look at the history of bad environmental predictions, notably in the 1970's the impending Ice Age and 1980's the horrible problems of Acid Rain. Acid Rain has proven harmless and now environmentalists predict Global Warming not an Ice Age. In another 20 years extreme environmentalists will be back to calling for an Ice Age after Global Warming fails them. Also, there is good reason for scientists to make extreme predictions
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Funny how people seem to have no problem doing it now-- especially for thing that affect more than one person-- you get a couple you have a class action lawsuit and they go to town.
The lawyers do it for a cut of the check and if they make their case then great.
Problem is they have to actually show damages.
But when people can seriously sue McDonalds for making their kids fat, I think the bar might be too low, not too high!
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, most of the time lawsuits are NOT a disincentive. Yes, once in a while a bad company will get caught and will have to shell out some money to somebody to keep them quiet. Here are a couple of flaws of the "let the courts settle it" puritanism:
1) The damage is already done. Courts only settle things AFTER THE FACT. This does not disincentivize companies from acting badly as long as they think they can cover it up, and shut up the random person that is brave enough to mount a legal challenge. Do I really have to parade out the history of awful things corporations have done without upfront legel checks? Did you miss that whole Enron thing?
2) You are not the only owner of your property. Wow, did I really say that? I bet I am some evil demented socialist! "Property" exists *because* of the government, not despite it. There are things that we share in common as a *society*. Things like waterways, airways, natural wonders, the environment system in general. No, I don't want somebody, say, dumping tons of mercury in their backyard just because it is theirs. Strangely, pollution has a way of ignoring property titles and hurting *everybody*.
What you fail to realize is that while the government may be an evil monopoly, the same can be true of corporations in a free market. Out of the kettle into the frying pan. The answer is not to just restrict one, and ignore the other. The answer is to judiciously limit both. Surely as an erudite free marketist, you will admit that free markets, without any external controls tend to self destruct, i.e., conglomerate into mega-monopolies. Tell me how a monopoly of corporate conglomerates is different from this evil thing called "government". It could be argued that in this age of globalization, many international corporations have MORE power than nations. Is corporate sovereignty better than national sovereignty?
The compromise between individual and collective power is historic and unending. Right now, it is my opinion that power unbalanced and concentrated more in the "collectives" called corporations. Old school conservatives will admit this, but you cannot? In fact, I find it downright strange that self titled libertarians aren't more interested in being free from the influence of large corporations as well as government.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
The "invisible hand" is based on an aware and informed consumer (hell, the whole free market is based on an aware and informed consumer).
And where does the consumer get his information? Well, increasingly, conglomerated multinational corporations of course.
This is not to say there is anything intentionally evil in that. It is just that centralized media will naturally push its own values (witnessed by the incessent complaining of conservatives about the liberal media). I think centralization of media is one of the most important issues these days. I think we can give up the pretense that consumers are actually the customers of centralized media. They are not. The customers are advertisers, and the product is you.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Its really funny you should say this given that the media is totally leftist-- and that it is centralized because the GOVERNMENT forces it to!
Not all the whining about right wing talk radio-- the right wingers actually get to talk and you guys just can't stand it! Such freedom supporters you are.
Capitalism and market forces do NOT Require a fully informed consumer to work-- that's a flat out lie and that assumption does not exist in market theory.
Anyone who doesn't like the service at a restaurant is fully informed- he's been there. buwsinesses survive due to repeat business, not one time customers.
Sheesh, LEARN SOME ECONOMICS. And Marx doesn't count.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
The government is an evil monopoly-- you don't pay the money they demand, they come and throw you in jail.
A corporation, if they don't make a sale, tries harder next time to get your business.
Its amazing that you cannot see the difference between these two situation.
What you also fail to realize is that there is no such thing as legitimate "collective" power- also this collectivism you talk about invariable is a justification to use FORCE against people you don't like-- and the reasons you give are excuses.
After all, if they weren't merely excuses, then people wouldn't be giving smoking as an issue- anyone can smoke and its not "pollution"-- the smoking issue is about control.
As is all collectivism. You hate individualism, and want to force everyone to conform, and so you try to get a political system going to support it.
In the end, it will turn out you don't care about ANY individual rights and want everyone to be a slave to the state-- let me guess, you don't support the elimination of taxes, the elimination of building codes (which prevent safety, not encourage it) the elimination of gun laws (Which make us all less safe), right? Cause if you don't then you endorse the wholesale violations of human rights.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes I did read the article. He quotes a few lines from the platform, but instead of providing facts that refute the legitimacy of those positions, he just hysterically rants about them.
"BTW- there are two Green Party US's out there, he's explicit about which platform he's reviewing, and the platform is still the same as it was in 2000"
As far as I know, the two have merged. The "Green Party" was actually first an activism group and a small official political party. They both came together before the 2000 election I believe, and some of the more radical positions of the activist wing were dropped, IIRC.
"But the greens want them ALL DESTROYED anyway!"
Yes you're right. The Green party wants to DESTROY all companies. Damn you! You found out! If only it wasn't for you meddling kids and Scooby Doo we would have gotten away with our plan! MUAHAHAHAHA. err...
"Something about making the proletariat own the means of production, and we all know how that works."
Wow, can I win an argument with such a juvenile invocation of history? Does the Green party want to burn people in ovens too? Step outside your cabin for a second, not everybody is a communist out to get you. Sheesh. Anyway, the USSR is one, BAD, failed example of communism (Stalinism really)...communism is not that great for at least 2 reasons 1) temporary dictatorships are never temporary 2) dictatorship by the proletariate is *still* dictatorship. You might want to take a look around the world to find where socialist aspects are actually working (without being explicitly called that), e.g. lots of Europe. You might also want to refer to the "socialist" Canadian health system. We all know how that works. Nicely.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Uh, funny, you accuse me of being paranoid that everyone's a communist (I'm not, but the greend avowedly are communists) and THEN go on to claim communism really isn't that bad!
Anyway, if you'd BOTHERED TO READ THE PLATFORM, they do want the destruction of call companies, and they call for it explicitely, and of course this will ruin the country if it actually happens, and result in the slaughter of thousands of people- cause many of them will refused to do it.
That's logic, and I note that you did not respond to the logic, you just tried to pick nits.
As for europe- its going down the drain pretty fast due to socialist, as is canada. Canada can't even keep its doctors, as they flee to the US so they can actually get paid, and people there have to wait years for surugery.
Socialism aka communism is a total failure-- and the only states where you can pretend it works are ones where it isn't fully implemented and capitalism is allowed to prop it up.
Look at china-- adopting some capitalism to try and compensate for the fact that SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK.
This is too easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Check out what the greens really believe in: http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html Don't vote for a party if you think just by the name they are pro-environment.
Er, OK, don't vote for as party just by its name. Gotcha. Can I choose by color?
And remember, the BIGGEST polluter in the world is the US government, and the worst one in this country is the all the federal and state governments. Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.
First of all that's utter nonsense; second, it is irrelevant unless you're saying the gov't should clean up its act along with everyone else. Remember, America consumes about 25% of the world's energy, any improvement will make a difference.
And the greens want MORE government, not less.
No, many would trim the fat from the military or farm subsidies, for 2 of 1000 examples.
A company wrongs you, you can sue them. When the government does it, you have no recourse.
That's wrong, people sue the gov't all the time. I don't know why so many people have this 12th century view of sovereign immunity. Before you argue with me that I don't know anything about suing the gov't, (1) I'm a lawyer, and (2) I used to work for a federal appeals courts, and wrote up dozen cases where the gov't was a defendant. Not just civil rights, either.
Best solution for the environment is privatization of land and a rational court system to sue for damages. You pollute my drinking water, I sue you. EVen if you are the government.
We have that now. It's not enough. Unless if by "You pollute my drinking water, I sue you" you mean a strict approach of suing over any pollution -- now, that would cripple both the courts and industry. Good job.
Also, a wait-to-sue approach means we'd have to wait for the nuclear reactor down the street to melt down before we could regulate it. If we were still alive.
And, while we're at it, how many jobs would exist if all the large and small companies in the country were destroyed? Where would the tax money come from?
How many jobs would exist if everyone died? Where would the tax money come from? Equally compelling and difficult to answer questions.
If you don't understand economics, and want to help the environment, you vote green, and your vote is an endorsement for wholesale environmental destruction. If you DO understand economics, and you want to protect the environment, you vote libertarian.
Uh, proof? Your say-so? Besides, you just told us not to vote for a party by its name alone.
Most geeks are actually libertarians, though the geeks on slashdot seem to be mostly socialists-- I suspect this is because most geeks don't hang out on slashdot, and mostly the slashdot is the LAN admin, Server Admin crowd (rather than computer, electrical and software engineers.)
Your insights are fascinating. And unsupported by any evidence.
I know, a bunch of socialists are going to scream their empty heads off about this post- but please, don't waste my time. Show how market economics supports your position. (And if you think market economics are irrelevant, then you fit the definition of "not knowing anything about economics."
You haven't even defined "market economics" -- an incredibly vague term -- and I doubt you could anyway. If you do so, please include whose analysis of market economics you adhere to and why. Also unequivocal proof that this analysis is correct and not susceptible to market failures without government regulation.
This country is heading towards tyranny and socialism, and will go the way of the USSR (with a similar 58 million klilled) if we don't reign in the out of control federal government.)
Tyranny and socialism? Well, I suppose we're halfway there. And the word is "rein."
Economics are a science. A Geek, should take science into account- rather than following a religion. You wouldn't look to the church to decide your OS, would you? So why look to the church (or the agnostic mysticism of socialism) to determine your economic policy?
Economics is a dismal science. Even economists will tell you that. Despite all the mathematics there is still a fair amount of art involved, and if you really think economics is a monolithic institution, get two economists into a room and watch the fur fly. It's not pretty. Don't get be wrong, I have friends who are economists, and I like them. The good ones don't claim to be omniscient.
Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution. Be a Geek and make a scientifically based decision.
Hey, we finally agree on something. You to add, "Please disregard the preceding rant."
Beneath my insouciant abuse is a salient point: nothing is as simple as signing on with the right political club, green or libertarian. You must think for yourself, and if you're like most people you'll be hard pressed to find a party you agree with 100% of the time. Also, beware people who throw out arguments without facts to back them up.
I could provide detailed rebuttals, but you haven't made any concrete statements of fact or opinion taht would support reasoned debate. That's not a put-down, it's a fact. And certainly you would agree we should decide things on the facts?
BTW, I'm not a socialist, though I probably appear one to you.
P.S. Offtopic and Troll police -- IMHO this has been a fairly mild-mannered effort to address the points raised in the parent's post. I really don't think i could be much more charitable, but hope this is informative. Or interesting. Or insightful.
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
Economics gets to be a science if meteorology can be a science. They're both able to predict the next day or the next century with pretty decent accuracy. But in between those, forget it.
Re:This is too easy... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a lot more agreement among meterologists than economists. Meterologists and economists do share a problem of contradicting each other despite working from the same data, but that doesn't make either look more scientific. But among meterologists it's not like there are divergent philosophical camps that would like to see each other dead (at the moment I'm reading a Paul Krugman piece on Martin Feldstein and Social Security -- my idea of humor). And I can't see meterologists writing dueling op-ed columns any time soon. Most prominent economists tend to have prominent political affiliations as well, which illustrates that their beliefs are oftentimes as philosophical as mathematical.
I was giving an economist friend a hard time; someone commented how he'd been in a roomful of accountants, and they were so down-to-business -- why are economist so different. I said, because accountants are paid to the job done, economists are paid to have an opinion.
It's funny you chose economics and meterology as examples -- perhaps you were already thinking of it, but a meterologist runs Lying In Ponds [lyinginponds.com] -- check it out. Maybe I should drop him an email asking whether metereologists go at it bare-knuckled.
Both fields do suffer from the same problem -- the difficulty of getting the right numbers, getting them accurate, and applying them correctly. Little initial goofs have a chaos theory kind of effect. I doubt either field can predict the next year, let along the next century, with much accuracy. (And if either can, let me know because I'll make a fortune off of it.)
*
Anyway
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
This is the old saw of people who can't handle logic, can't do math, and want to believe their religious beliefs despite the facts.
Economics is not perfect, but it is a science, and one set of theories have been proven over the last 100 years to be predictive, both forward and backward in time.
Try reading "Economics in one easy lesson" or taking a basic economics course.
Rather than getting your economics education from people who can't do basic math. (EG Democrats)
Here's a simple lesson for you:
http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.htm
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
If you want me to cite facts, you have to challeng my assertions.
Just calling me names and showing us all that you've heard of the ad hominem logical fallacy-- but not that you understood it, as your example so aptly provides, doesn't score you any points.
Challenge the contention and I'll defend it, just whining that I haven't proven something is stupid, and the lie on the face of it- I have provided the green party platform, and that is a fact.
Its actually pretty explicit about what it says- pointing it out doesn't require more than pointing it out.
IF you want to dispute something, dispute it, but that you choose not to shows the poor thinking going on on your side.
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
Uh, dude, read the article I linked at before making your claims. They are backed there.
You aren't a lawyer, by the way, if you were you'd know you can't sue the government-- or you can, but your case will be thrown out almost all the time.
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
I have provided reason to defend my position. As usual for your type, you don't.
If you really were a lawyer, you could provide logic, if you had the facts you could state them.
Since I have done both and I'm not a lawyer, you lose.
Its not my job to teach you economics, but hell, look at the guy who won the nobel prize this year. Look at what is taught in economics these days (Except at the most leftist institutions.)
IOW, your ignorance is your claim that you're right. Gee, impressive. Your law degree apparently isn't worth much.
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
P.S. How do you get from "If you really were a lawyer, you could provide logic, if you had the facts you could state them." to "Your law degree apparently isn't worth much."
That's poor lawyering, getting your facts mixed up.
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
Uh, I pointed to the facts, and I referenced others. Unfortunately, you never did showed the same curtesy.
Anyway, generally accepted by economics is what I was referencing. Marx has been disproven (he made statements to verify his theories, and on his terms he has failed.) Keynes has been disproven- every country that follows his advice has done poorly, and many of them have switched to the chicago school and done very well.
Every year it seems a chicago school person gets another nobel award.
Yes, like any scientific field there are people who advocate crackpot theories, but the chicago school (and the vienna school) have won over with consistent results and reproducibility.
There is debate between the two schools, but only fools (aka Democrats and some republicans) advocate keynsian economics these days.
Certainly it has been known for the last 50 years to be non-functional.
And the areas where government regulation is "Called for" by you guys are well known to be false ones-- monopolies, unless CREATED by the government, invariably will fall to anti-monopoly forces in the market. It is very difficult to sustain a monopoly, unless you have government backing. (And all the monopolies in this country have-- though IBM and MS which were percieved to be monopolies were attacked before monopoly forces could have full effect, but the evidence of their effect was obvious even when they were attacked.)
Sorry, I get to speak to "Generally accepted" economics theories because they ARE. And I cite the nobel committee as my authority- and actually, every economist I know (which includes some prominent ones.)
No, they debate over lots of things-- but not the existence of market forces or the superiority of market theory in most situations.
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
Your theory of anitrust is, uh, interesting. And lacking any facts. Anyway, it is hardly "generally accepted."
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
Uh, be happy to if you'd given me reason to doubt anything I've said.
See, you have to provide logic or reason or even facts before I try and disprove you-- but you haven't so, sitting there and saying "teach me economics" doesn't really get you points.
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
As for what you have baldly asserted, you're out of hand dead in the water on the sovereign immunity. There are many areas where the federal government and states may be sued for statutory and constitutional violations, and yes successfully sued (they lose often as plaintiff, too). Civil rights, social security, contract disputes, taxes, criminal matters, and so on. The government can also choose to waive sovereign immunity, as it did in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Now, arguably sovereign immunity is overbroad, or the courts are biased towards the government (true to some degree), but it is populist claptrap to say you can't file suit or that you can't win a meritorious case.
As for the "green party," well, there are different ones in various countries with different things to say. But forget about the Greens and the rest of the parties. The fallacy you're falling into is that however wrong or corrupt the Greens or anyone else might be would never validate some other set of beliefs. Libertarianism has to stand on its own merits. Note that the Libertarian Party [lp.org] focuses more on constructive argument. Moreover, like the Greens and other parties, libertarians come in lots of different flavors. If I were inclined to try to discredit the lot of them by singling out some loonies [mo-net.com], I would then be rejecting the civil libertarians with whom I agree.
Don't forget that even if you can identify a single theory of modern economics -- and you can't, part of why there are so many economists -- you have to prove further that economics is consistently right. They could all agree with each other (they don't) or even the smartest ones could run the show, but there would be no guarantee of success, just of more economic studies. Economists make terrible bets all the time; they're human.
I don't think you're a pure troll, as you probably fervently believe what you're saying. If I wanted to really disrespect you I would ignore you. However, you're coming up with nothing solid but your unsubstantiated beliefs and ridicule of others, and I think most of us learned in the schoolyard that doesn't make you very persuasive, except to people who already agree with you.
*
I guess this posting was about environmentalism. And that was your error at the outset: you assumed "environment" mean "Green Party." You also assume that anyone who is an environmentalist in whole or part is blind to the need for balance and compromise. Like zealots in other areas of political life, including libertarians, these people don't speak for the whole, and what they say applies to themselves alone.
Re:This is too easy... (Score:2)
Ok I'll try to remember this correctly. Besides a lot of stuff on psychology of classes, Marx made the economic statement that capitalism was unstable, and would tend to boom and bust. This is proven. It does this. They're called market cycles. The more ambitious claim, based on the former, was that capitalism would self destruct. I'm not sure we've had long enough to determine whether this will be true or not. Modern capitalist societies are fueled by two things Marx did not predict or factor in 1) the role of technology and sustainability of fabrication of consumer desires (he did factor in technology, but only for its practical purpose...not the gee-whiz-let-me-buy-the-new-$300-PDA-purpose) 2) cheap labor in the third world. I believe both of these things are heartily fueling western capitalism. Take these away and wait 50 years and then we will find if "capitalism self-destructs". Or, conversely, hand every third world nation a lump of money so they can compete on a level playing field and see if these competing capitalist nations succeed. So far capitalism seems to be doing marvelously (ignoring any social/cultural/moral ills), for the rich at least, and there isn't any newer better proven mechanism. But that's far from saying it's bullet proof. There are too many factors involved for anything to be proven/disproven globally in economics.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
I think the phrase you're looking for is `Watermelon' (green on the outside, red on the inside). At least, that's the impression I get when I note that the party platform of the Greens includes such ``environmental'' issues as redistribution of wealth and race-based quotas for hiring (not sure that these are part of the Green platform? Don't take my word for it [greenpartyus.org].
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
watermelon is a great word.
The astounding thing is that they advocate the continuation of drug crimianlization but not hte "war on drugs" and want to destroy all the companies in the country (but call it making them employee owned.)
Just like their environmental policies these are things that will do the opposite of what they claim to do.
AS a business owner, if I was forced to give my business to the employees, I'd shut it down. Course we saw how that went in russia- those who shut down businesses rather than let them get nationalized were slaughtered for "Stealing" from the public.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Don't vote for a party just because the first few letters of their name are the same as the first few letters of the word "liberty," either.
Libertarians support the abolition of prescription requirements for the purchase of medications.
Libertarians call for the repeal of RICO statutes that allow police departments to prosecute organized crime.
Libertarians oppose involuntary commitment of insane people into mental hospitals. I guess they're hoping that all the paranoid schizophrenics of the world just check themselves in whenever they get around to it.
Libertarians call for the abolition of National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Libertarians oppose the right of parents to teach religion to their kids. (I'm really not making these things up; this is actually in their platform.)
Libertarians call for an immediate end to various municipal and state bans on smoking in public places. *cough* *cough*
Libertarians want to abolish the use of passports, both issuing them and requiring them at US borders.
Libertarians oppose the government's power to subpoena individuals or companies. (No more public hearings on things like tobacco company misconduct, I guess.)
Libertarians want all border control-- including immigration control-- abolished immediately and permanently.
Libertarians call for the abolition of the dollar as a unit of currency, and of all government-issued coinage.
Libertarians want to abolish the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.
Libertarians call for the abolition of all taxation, but also call for the prohibition of deficit spending. I guess they're planning to have a national "collection plate" day, or something.
Libertarians oppose antitrust legislation, which by the way is practically the only thing keeping Microsoft from coming into your house and eating your children. (Okay, I made that last part up. But we all know how important antitrust laws are in keeping Microsoft in line, even when the process takes longer than we'd like. Better than nothing.)
Libertarians want to abolish the Small Business Association. Just try to start a business without an SBA loan.
Libertarians call for an end to utility rate regulation. Be prepared to spend at least twice as much for your electricity, gas, and water as you do now.
Libertarians demand (not want, but actually "demand") the abolition of the EPA. Speaking of green....
Libertarians want to get rid of the FAA, the CPSA, the NTSB, and the FDA. From now on, landing your plane, testing your kid's toys, ensuring that your car doesn't explode spontaneously, and making sure your food isn't poisonous will be your own responsibility. Be careful.
Libertarians call for the end of the public education system in this country. I know some public schools are pretty bad, but can't we agree that they're a hell of a lot better than nothing at all?
I'm only about halfway through the party platform. This could go on all night. Don't be fooled by the Libertarians, guys. Some of their ideas seem to make sense, but deep down the party's position is extremist and completely nuts. Don't cast a single Libertarian vote in any election, major or minor, until you read their entire platform [lp.org]. I'm telling you, it's a hoot.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Yep, its true. I have a friend who is dying of a disease that is treatable. My friend was in an experimental program and got to try a drug (that is save in humans, is proscribed for other diseases with no problems, but not authorized for treating this particular disease.) The drug worked really well.
But now my friend may DIE because she cannot get this life saving drug because it is not authorized by the FDA for thier particular disease.
I think DOCTORS are the ones that should give such advice, and individuals are the ones who are responsible for what drugs they take- not paper pushers who are not accountable for the DEATH they cause.
You got a problem with that?
Libertarians oppose the right of parents to teach religion to their kids. (I'm really not making these things up; this is actually in their platform.)
this is a flat out lie
Libertarians call for an immediate end to various municipal and state bans on smoking in public places. *cough* *cough*
You socialists are starting to ban them in PRIVATE HOMES.
Anyway, yeah, anyone who wants to open a restaurant can either have smoking ban, or allow their customers to smoke. you don't like it, don't go there
You oppose libertarians because you oppose liberty-- you want to decide what people can do and not let them make their own choices, and that's fascist. Oh, and you're a liar.
If you actually supported human rights, you'd vote libertarian, its the only party that does support them.
I'm skipping the rest of your message, assuming its just as full of crap as this part.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
You oppose libertarians because you oppose liberty-- you want to decide what people can do and not let them make their own choices, and that's fascist. Oh, and you're a liar.
If you actually supported human rights, you'd vote libertarian, its the only party that does support them.
Hi! I like the Libertarians, and I agree with a lot of what they have to say. I would be inclined to vote for them once they have stopped running quite so many goofballs for office (e.g., the guy who turned himself blue [cnn.com].
But frothing like this is only hurting them. Your views are so crashingly unsubtle that you'd have a hard time persuading me to get out of a burning building, let alone voting for someone.
Take the smoking ban, for example. The standard Libertarian line is that your right to swing your fist ends somewhere near my nose. So suppose I go into your favorite bar and start blowing asbestos fibers into the air. Who's liberty is more important? Mine to blow asbestos fibers into the air? Or yours to keep living?
Note that nobody is saying, even in California, you can't consume all the nicotine that you want; you're just not allowed to do it in a way that interferes with others' health and enjoyment of their meals.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Do you know why? You try to make this sound radical. They wouldn't mind the dollar if it was still a gold standard-- but what they want is a unit of currency that has real value- rather than one that the government can devalue at will.
You should want that too, if you want economic security.
As usual, you guys use people's ignorance about economics to try and scare them AWAY from voting to protecting human rights, and instead voting for your plans that would make their retirement savings worthless!
Libertarians call for the abolition of all taxation, but also call for the prohibition of deficit spending. I guess they're planning to have a national "collection plate" day, or something.
Yep, this sounds really radical to people who are ignorant of the fact that the government gets money from other areas than taxation. Oh, and there's nothing to stop the government from charging people fees for actual use of their services.
Libertarians oppose antitrust legislation, which by the way is practically the only thing keeping Microsoft from coming into your house and eating your children.
The usual play on peoples ignorance and fear-- you know people hate microsoft, so anything that could be good for them must be bad, huh? IF you knew anything about monopolies you'd realize that this antitrust crap is really just a way to violate your human rights - you think linux is no threat to microsoft?
Libertarians want to abolish the Small Business Association. Just try to start a business without an SBA loan.
Funny, virtually EVERY business started in this country is started WITHOUT an SBA loan. Plus, there's no reason to abolish the SBA-- please show where in the platform libertarians call for its abolition-- I think you're lying.
Libertarians call for an end to utility rate regulation. Be prepared to spend at least twice as much for your electricity, gas, and water as you do now.
More scare tactcis based on ignorance. Unfortunately, I've worked for the power industry and I know for a fact that if there was a free market, power would go down in cost by HALF, not double. but then, to people who are too stupid to understand the basics of market economics, they may believe you. Notice what happened in california when the government regulators fucked up-- they doubled the price of power because they screwed up. In a free market situation that never would have happened-- others would have been able to step in (rather than JUST people who couldn't sell the electricity) to provide the power.
Libertarians want to get rid of the FAA, the CPSA, the NTSB, and the FDA. From now on, landing your plane, testing your kid's toys, ensuring that your car doesn't explode spontaneously, and making sure your food isn't poisonous will be your own responsibility. Be careful.
Libertarians call for the end of the public education system in this country. I know some public schools are pretty bad, but can't we agree that they're a hell of a lot better than nothing at all?
Typical socialist idiocy-- if the government doesn't do it, it doesn't get done?
STUPID. What do you think caused 9/11? The government. If they had let airlines control their security prior to 9/11 the pilots would have been armed, killed the terrorists and we would have had some aborted flights, rather than 3000 dead. The government DISARMED THE PILOTS, despite many hijackings that occured in the 70s, and the fact that most pilosts are ex-military and more than capable of handling a side arm.
Yeah, the government sure does make us safe!
And you think that the once every four year inspections are what keeps your food safe? Hell no-- we have a major beef recall right now. What keeps food safe is the fact that a company who poisons someone is going to have to pay them for the liability, and nobody will go somewhere that they get sick.
Sheesh. What idiocy-- you don't know basic economics, do you?
Libertarians call for the end of the public education system in this country. I know some public schools are pretty bad, but can't we agree that they're a hell of a lot better than nothing at all?
Another of the "if the government didn't do it, it wouldn't happen" fallacy. Fact is, if you elimiated taxation and you eliminted public schools, the POOREST americans would be able to send their kids to schools FAR BETTER and far better financed than the richest americans do now-- becuase the cost of operating a school (or any business) would be lower, incomes would be much higher across the board (on top of being able to keep all of it instead of half of it) etc.
Funny how you want to keep the poor poor and thier kids UNEDUCATED.
If you actually understand the basics of economics, and believe in human rights, then libertarian is the only way to vote.
Otherwise you're voting for oppression, poverty and environmental destruction.
Its not obvious, especially with so many people spreading lies like you do-- but anyone who investigates the situation will discover the truth.
I know, I did, I used to be a liberal idiot too.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
You have pretty obviously never worked in a restaurant.
The greatest irony. (Score:2)
The greatest irony is that you oppose "Monopolies" like microsoft, while endorsing a far worse one.
But if you hate microsoft, you can boycott them. You can refused to do business with them, work for them, or buy their shares. You have that choice.
But for the government, you have no choice. Tehy take your tax money, your social security money, and they provide no services-- the social security fund is bankrupt (By definition- they owe more than they have) the police are sketchy at best, and they caused 9/11 and still haven't prosecuted the murderers for Waco.
Yet you don't have a choice- you can't even refuse these services-- you have to pay, or they force you to. You have to submit to their "Service" or they put you in jail.
The worse monopoly of all is the government-- they force their customers to pay at gunpoint and they give them no choice in the quality of services.
You can't even go to an outside vendor and pay them instead if you want police protection or a private first class mail service (There was a couple of these before the government created a monopoly for themselves.)
Microsoft may be assholes, and I may refuse to use their product, but when I have bought products from tehm they actually delivered. The government forcibly extracts %50 of my income every year (in total taxes) and delivers maybe 1/30th the value of what I pay. And I don't have choice to go to another supplier for the service-- and the service sucks.
Hell, the social security scam is an outright fraud many orders of magnitude bigger than enron, yet enron is shut down and it continues to worsen.
Yeah, you oppose monopolies- except for one. the one that has a monopoly on whether we get to have human rights or not.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Nope
Don't try to dodge the truth by LYING about what your platform actually says!
Its so pathetic, Nadar created his own platform to run on-- but the official party platform is there for everyone to see.
The funny thing is, you think military spending is half the federal spending, it isn't.
You guys just believe what you want, irregardless of the facts.
No wonder you don't stand behind your own platform.
Re:Green is not the real color... (Score:2)
Gee, a spelling flame! Wow, the last resort of those with no logic, facts nor reason.
The green party platform I'm referencing implements all the goals given by the rest of the green parties.
That you guys have no standard platform (other than the one I'm pointing to) is your problem, not mine. Nadar ran on the platform so its worth knowing what he endorsed, even if he didn't have the guts to admit it.
Re:You are sad, pathetic (Score:2)
Uh, you're such an idiot. I have never submitted an article to slashdot, so how could I care if they never published it?
Sheesh. Yet another troll without an argument to make, but lots of names to call people.
Really impresseive.
Re:By "Green" he meant environmentally friendly (Score:2)
You're saying the "Green party" isn't green?
Uh, ok, if that's the case then you're right.
Re:You look for your self what they want (Score:2)
The US Green party platform is up for everyone to see.
The link I provided tears it apart and shows that it really is communism, just warmed over and renamed.
Tsk-tsk (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's just the selfish dimension of environmentalism -- which I hope you share? (Hey, I dunno -- maybe you supply your own O2
I do know a lot of tech people who love to spend time outdoors. And in the Silicon Valley to S.F. area, and Seattle, too, there are plenty of level-headed "tree huggers."
Re:Tsk-tsk (Score:2)
Re:Tsk-tsk (Score:3, Interesting)
And we can always do better -- this is not the best-of-all-possible-worlds. The 'third world" (now usually calle developing nations) doesn't have to become a sewer. That's why people criticize sweatshops or worry about NAFTA side-agreements. We can export the "fad" if we choose to.
But maybe i don't understand your point.
Re:Tsk-tsk (Score:2)
Hey dude, I'm sure you haven't noticed, but the economy is WRECKED.
IT would have been a lot more robust and had no problems with a few companies failing and the terrorism issue if it weren't for the onerous government regulation and taxation you idiots impose on it.
The proof of free market economics is that it is still good, despite doing all you can to destroy it.
Maybe you don't understand economics.
Re:Tsk-tsk (Score:2)
Eh?
Last I looked, we just came out of a mild, mild recession with unemployment rates that are still much better than Europe. GDP is forcast to increase circa 3% this year.
The main thing that's going on is that we're still working off the hangover from the big dot-com party. Hopefully this will teach us a little caution about wild parties.
Re:Tsk-tsk (Score:2)
Clearly you don't understand debate, economics or Facts.
Otherwise you would have provided a disagreement for me to try and prove, you idiot.
Re:Tsk-tsk (Score:2)
Re:Green geeks (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when is environmentalism mystic? Seems like common sense that one would prefer drinkable water, rivers that don't burn and air that makes the sky look blue instead of brown.
Unless your claim is that technology will be sufficiently strong to counter the negative health benefits of those things...
Doing Drugs (Score:2)
I've noticed that most of the people who "are concerned for the enviroment" do some sort of drugs.
I'm serious! Most smoke hemp at the very least.
Sorry, but that makes it that much harder for me to take them seriously.
Re:Ripped Off By Enviro Whackos (Score:2)
Lots of really good points, so of course you were modded "Troll". See, you non-politically correct troll you! I hope you learned your lesson!
Really, the greenpeace people are the worst-- back when I was young and stupid I sent them $25. They managed to spend all of it in the next year on mailings to me asking for more money. And then they sent another two years worth of them!
Later, when I realized they were greenWAR, I realized that all I had to do was give them $5, and then they'd spend three years asking for more money-- I can drive them out of business by donating! And so I do it. Whenever its been a while without their free kindling, I send them another $5. So far, I've cost them a couple hundred dollars for the cost of about $35!
The funny thing is that they are always initiating violence to get their way- -damaging equipment, spiking trees and ramming boats are initiating violence. They should be shot when they do that, or just before, so that they don't get to fight their war without casualties on their part.
This year they actually rammed one of hte Americas cup boats! Why? Because it was sponsored by a french power company that has nuclear power plants.
So they ATTACKED a SAILBOAT! The greenest vessels on the planet- they have to be towed out to the races because they have no engines-- and they rammed them because they had a logo on the sail they didn't like!
Talk about political correctness, and the greenpeace people are the moderate mainstream of the movement.
Re:What do we think, you ask? (Score:3, Informative)
Have you asked?
Sustainable growth is a pattern of resource use that provides a reasonable degree of certainty that future generations will be able to employ the same pattern of resource use. Think "rotating crops" here.
Next!
Re:What do we think, you ask? (Score:2)
Yep, thanks for proving it.
Its a meaningless phrase that nobody can define without resorting to:
"Sustainable growth is a pattern of growth that is sustainable".
A circular definition proves there is no real one.
Re:What do we think, you ask? (Score:2)
You're just being silly.
Sustainable is a perfectly reasonable English word. So is growth. People put adjectives and nouns together all the time. The reason why there's nothing more to the definition is not that it's meaningless, but rather because there's nothing much more to it than what the words themselves together mean in the normal English way.
Let me spell it out though, 'cauuse clearly you're not putting any effort into trying to understand:
Re:What do we think, you ask? (Score:2)
Ha! That says it all there.
REally "sustainable growth" is just a code phrase for "We want to make driving an SUV punishable by death."
Its all about control and thus, is fascist.
Re:Heh (Score:2)
Except that your car has never been splattered by a squirrel and anyone driving like an idiot in any car is just as much as an idiot, and you really just hate SUVs because they are a status symbol rather than for any environmental excuse...
Notice how the environmentalists always lie about how much forest there is-- its cause any forest in which a human has farted is immediately decared NON-FOREST development by them.
At current trends, we'll be having to fight forests off from invading the cities while they run around saying there is no such thing as a forest any more!
I hope we go into civil war in a few year- throw off this repressive regime of do-gooder idiots who want to control everyones actions and thoughts and oppose human rights and don't mind killing people in the name of "saving" trees.
Get back to the america that the founders called for in the declaration of independence.
Re:Heh (Score:2)
Monopolies? Hah! I love these broad sweeping generalizations-- means you don't know fuck all about the facts of the sitution.
You need to read some writings of an economist that show how monopolies have a hard time surviving.
If there's great power alternatives , that are economically viable, how are "monopolies" keeping them down?
They aren't! Ballard Power in vancouver BC is working on a fuel cell for a car. I'm considering using it on my boat. Course I'm also considering a new electric motor that is ideal for the situation, and if I don't get rid of the diesel, I'll use bio-diesel which isn't mined but made from vegetable oil. Course its $2.50 a gallon so until it comes down in price, I'll use the dinosaur stuff.
Why? Cause of pollution? HELL NO. Cause diesels on boats are a reliable engine compared to gas, but a fuel cell would be even better, and allow for much longer range when coupled wiht solar and wind power. biodiesel? Because it smells better when operating than regular diesel.
I'm all for the environment but all opposed to you forcing people to live by your hippy dippy bullshit lifestyle. Especially when its based on such ignorance-- the only reason I can't go buy a ballard fuel cell right now is that it takes time to get the cost of manufacture down.
They have hundreds of millions of dollars from the "Evil monopoly car companies" that you hate and from energy companies that you claim are shutting them down-- and they make great progress, but expecting them to exceed Moores law in a non-electronics space is pretty absurd.
In other words, you're ignorant.
Re:I am an anti-environmentalist (Score:2)
Unfortunately its economically profitable to keep the forests producing trees every generation, and the oceans full of fish, and so the technology will be developed by these industries to protect the environment-- DESPITE all the terrorism and anti-environmental activities of the "environmentalists"