Forum menu
There is something deliciously stupid about people who defend capitalism when they don't understand it.
Political policing? Been going on for years. It's why they've lost the trust of the communities who need it the most.
The cops in that video are scum. If you knowingly take public money to do that you don't deserve to live in a democracy. Oh hang on....
Jazz hands!
I just finished my dinner. 😆
bwaarp - MemberSo you are saying the strive for food, an education to supply food and water in the next generation and clean living standards is a consumerist ideal?
Others have given you the answers but put it this way we never stop wanting. Fact!
I think you've shown your true colours there. Would you rather humanity didn't exist so that the birds can carry on competing with each other until one species becomes massively dominant at the expense of the others?
True colours? How about Dear Leader putting mankind to hard labour for greater good of his wisdom ... 😆 Human are supposed to be easily disposed of considering their infestation of the entire world. They are the greedy maggots that consume everything in their path. Maggots at least get eaten by bigger insects but human eats them all ... bloody pest.
Consumption drives demand, which drives the demand for labour, which creates wealth, which gives people access to food security. Once one resource become limited, demand and capitalism drives technological advancements that open new avenues for the creation of wealth.
Consumption drives greater consumption that create greed in an advance ways ...
colours? How about Dear Leader putting mankind to hard labour for greater good of his wisdom ... Human are supposed to be easily disposed of considering their infestation of the entire world. They are the greedy maggots that consume everything in their path. Maggots at least get eaten by bigger insects but human eats them all ... bloody pest.
Morally, what duty to other species do we have?
You are a traitor to your own kind.
Why the next generation what about now? Why has capitalism failed for so long and it is not technological solutions but moral ones. We could do it all today with current technology if we gave a shit or some multinational could make loads of money doing it.
Junkyard - I agree with you morally here, we should be doing more. However than includes a good education for the third world, without a good education what hope do people have in eeking out a living. Unfortunately, even in a world with out large corporations people will still barter goods. You need an education to produce goods whether it is pottery or nuclear science.
There is something deliciously stupid about people who defend capitalism when they don't understand it.
So which failed ideologies do you subscribe to.... marxism, fascism or anarchism?
Morally, what duty to other species do we have?
Yep, let's not give a flying f*** about other species. Especially things like bees. What do they do, except keep us all alive?
Yep, let's not give a flying f*** about other species. Especially things like bees. What do they do, except keep us all alive?
Seriously, explain why... bar our own happiness or survival.... do we have a moral obligation to them?
We should look after bee's because colony collapse is bad for us. But should we give a damn beyond that about animals that were once our predators or bacteria that once caused us immeasurable suffering? Do they care about us? We are a product of nature... the natural world is about competition. The competion that nature imparted on this world ultimately led to the creation of human kind. May I reiterate, why should I care that we are one of the best competitors on this planet when that which created us was natural?
Nature is neither beautiful or cruel. It just is..... it is indifferent to you and I or seemingly anything else for that matter. So it should not be held in any sort of reverence or hatred.
**** damnation man, **** redemption, we are God's unwanted children, so be it.
Sorry, but I must of missed something in earlier threads but why dont members of the occupy movement just start a political party and stand in elections?
Seriously, explain why bar our own happiness or survival do we have a moral obligation?
We have a moral obligation precisely because we are the only species that is able to have a moral obligation, and additionally because we share a planet with a vast and wonderful natural world which deserves our respect and attention.
We have a moral obligation precisely because we are the only species that is able to have a moral obligation, and additionally because we share a planet with a vast and wonderful natural world which deserves our respect and attention.
I don't agree with you..... any moral obligation we have is secondary to the long term survival of the human species.
Questions about environmental issues are only relevant if A) Environmental damage outweighs the economic gains for the 3rd world B) Environmental damage directly threatens the survival of the human race C) Environmental damage causes a loss of moral in large swathes of the world population.
It should not be used as an excuse to impede the progress of human technological development or well being... especially when it comes to areas such as food security, medicine, space exploration and future power generation (eg fusion).
we are the only species that is able to have a moral obligation
and then you have characters like bwaaarp, who, on the basis of what a handful of outspoken people who formed themselves into a tenuous organisation loosely connected to a much wider debate had to say about food production methods, has damned an entire global discussion relating to starting to think about regulating our obscenely powerful and grossly inadequate overseers..
what an interesting psyche.. 😯
(apologies for the offensively long sentences in this post)
I don't agree with you any moral obligation we have is secondary to the long term survival of the human species.
Well, you still need to protect the delicate eco-system we're an endemic part of to ensure your own survival, so put your amoral egotism to the fore, and do it for selfish reasons if you must.
what an interesting psyche..
"interesting" indeed!
selfish reasons
The only reasons people do gestures of goodwill is to make them feel better about themselves. That's also selfishness, the best people in the world are completely and utterly selfish.
I'm not amoral, I'm just know where my allegiances lie and they are first with humanity....fairies and daffodils second.
I won't go through life intellectually apologising to nature or intellectually feeling bad about myself because of what species I am. Humans have done that before with religion, especially within the Catholic church.
The only reasons people do gestures of goodwill is to make them feel better about themselves
That's a statement about you, no-one else.
That's a statement about you, no-one else.
Setting off the feel good chemicals in the brain is a selfish act. That's not an excuse for me not to carry out acts of goodwill, I'm merely aware of the reason as to why I do it.
I won't go through life .... intellectually feeling bad about myself because of what species I am
No, no need to do that, but please feel free to feel bad about yourself for the way you act intellectually and morally.
No, no need to do that, but please feel free to feel bad about yourself for the way you act intellectually and morally.
Nahhh I thought and spent a considerable amount of time as part of the environmental movement. Spent time in Friends of the Earth and then decided I was surrounded by people who deep down resented most other people around them and found it quite easy to dehumanize vast swathes of humanity, labelling them things like "viruses".
Won't be part of it again. But thanks for your concern! My passionate dislike for parts of the occupy movement and so my reluctance to get involved with them comes from enjoying the presence of humanity more than trees.
Setting off the feel good chemicals in the brain is a selfish act.
share the love man..
[img] 
[/img]
the natural world is about competition. The competion that nature imparted on this world ultimately led to the creation of human kind. May I reiterate, why should I care that we are one of the best competitors on this planet when that which created us was natural?
Because it also created intelligence in some of us at least to rise above and be more than just an animal. It also says a lot when someone of the species at the top of the food chain, gets careless with the supply chain and it's support mechanisms.
It should not be used as an excuse to impede the progress of human technological development or well being... especially when it comes to areas such as food security, medicine, space exploration and future power generation
All of which can be done without the current failed method of capitalism. I'd go as for to say that capitalism is currently stopping us from progressing as a species, technological advances should not be the only measuring stick when it comes to human progress.
All technology feels like at the moment is us "tinkering" for materialistic purposes.
Ok so what method other than well regulated capitalism that the Occupy movement is actually campaigning for, would be better at succeeding capitalism. Go ahead, be my guest and enlighten me.
Because it also created intelligence in some of us at least to rise above and be more than just an animal.
Speciesism!
It also says a lot when someone of the species at the top of the food chain, gets careless with the supply chain and it's support mechanisms.
Yes, we should protect the environment for our own ends. I've already stated that.
All technology feels like at the moment is us "tinkering" for materialistic purposes.
Apart from GMO, Nuclear technology, Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Fusion research, Vaccine development etc etc etc etc etc..... all things that are being driven by demand. For example the consumer demand for computers helps to drive the development of those computers which then give researchers access to newer, more powerful computers at cheaper and cheaper prices to use in research.
We need to spend our way out (potentially through consumerism) of using technologies that harm the environment and drive the development of greener technology through utilizing capitalist supply and demand.
one millenium we will all realise than this monetary/power aquisition thing is not what human evolution is about and the only real value is ourselves and we will come together (through some kinda esp shit or something)an get together in our minds and float away from this planet at the speed our minds want in a ****in Ferrari. together. forever....... whoo
bwaarp - I was going to ask you whether you saw humans at the top of a pyramid with everything below them, then you posted:
Questions about environmental issues are only relevant if A) Environmental damage outweighs the economic gains for the 3rd world B) Environmental damage directly threatens the survival of the human race C) Environmental damage causes a loss of moral in large swathes of the world population.
Is there a reason why you think we as a species should abuse everything else to our gain? We co-exist and need to reduce the impact we have on the (often finite) 'resources' we rely on for life.
In fairness, I'm not sure ecology is one of bwaarp's strongest subjects.
We co-exist and need to reduce the impact we have on the (often finite) 'resources' we rely on for life.
See point B.
In fairness, I'm not sure ecology is one of bwaarp's strongest subjects.
After spending aproximately five years in Friends of The Earth and just about the same amount of time researching carrying capacity, I've come to the conclusion all but the higher population figures - 13 to 15 billion are horseshit. This figure most likely won't be exceeded due to better access to healthcare and parental planning in developing countries over the next 50 years. That once again the doom mongerers grabbed the front pages and this is possibly my primary reason why I rejected the green movement. Large swathes of them believe human population control is the answer and more level headed greens like George Monbiot are in the minority.
Thus I dislike and take a dim view of the alarmist sections of the environmental movement as I can see some of their views being increasingly used as excuses to intrude on basic human rights and give weight to the eugenics movement.
No, sorry, I'm still not convinced, despite all that time in FoE and all that research, that you understand ecology.
Questions about environmental issues are only relevant if A) Environmental damage outweighs the economic gains for the 3rd world B) Environmental damage directly threatens the survival of the human race C) Environmental damage causes a loss of moral in large swathes of the world population.
So, in essence, questions about environmental damage are relevant then.
So, in essence, questions about environmental damage are relevant then.
Only in the context of human survival, scientific understanding and decent levels of happiness, that is it.
decent levels of happiness
And what's the capitalist measure of this?
And what's the capitalist measure of this?
Something vaguely rational, like psychological surveys.
Who'll pay for the psychological surveys?
Who'll pay for the psychological surveys?
Trying to insinuate big corporations will fiddle them?
Medical think tanks connected to universities throughout the world tend to fund these things. It's already being done, national happiness surveys are done throughout the world. Doesn't take much to try to correlate scores with the environment through the correct design and application of the study.
So, is it the big corporations that are producing all that wonderful technological advances to see us out of the shit that are paying for those?
Big business sure cares whether we're happy or not doesn't it?
EDIT: Whoa...ninja edit above.
So, is it the big corporations that are producing all that wonderful technological advances to see us out of the shit that are paying for those?
No not really, unless you think companies that are interested in understanding how the human mind responds to it's environment are big bad corporations that are out to get you.
I suppose they also purposely give people cancer so that they can cure you.
So who are they then?
An eclectic mix of universities, corporations and NGO's. Generally with so many conflicting interests that during conferences, some sort of general truth will get out despite the presence of big bad corporations 😉
Oh right, I'm just trying to cut to the truth through your vagueness, that's all.
So, say, given that we're the main cause of a current mass extinction event, should we just plough on regardless with scant regard to species unless it threatens our survival?
I'd say we're to ****ing late, try convincing several billion people from working towards getting out of utter poverty or a vaguely modern lifestyle and the shit is going to hit the fan with massive social unrest.
What can you do politically other than massively clamping down on human rights? Even China could not keep a grip on their population and that is much easier than trying get a consensus and keep a grip on worldwide consumption. You could end up with a situation whereby we've totalled a lot of the environment and managed to usher in a new wave of disgusting political regimes to control population and socio-economic issues. I'd rather just go with one than both.
The best solution is forwards, technical progress to solve our problems and hopefully by the time we can we won't have wiped out too many major species. We should be conserving all endangered species through DNA data banks etc ready for when we do enter a new era.
hey Bwaarp..
Remember that cute hippy chick from FoE..?
Of course you do.. you thought she was the love of your life didn't you..?
and when she dumped you she was so kind and so practical.. but there was no way you could stay together.. not after the way that you were always so jealous and possessive at the love-ins (and boy did she [i]love[/i] those love-ins)
but you were too uptight and controlling and you held her back and stunted her spiritual growth..
she reaally hurt you didn't she..?
Thre are other ways of looking at this - its not unrelenting "progress" or back to the dark ages - there are other ways to manage the economy and other measures of happiness other than ownership of material goods
There is an inequality problem, and protesting about it is OK.
But feelings run high at large protests and agitators (attracted by the mob) can set off a riot. The police have to pre-empt this even if they cannot maintain complete order. The mistake we make is assuming the police are robots; in fact they are as agitated as the protesters. I'm not defending the specific actions of the police in this, or other, protests. I'm saying that blaming the police trivialises the problem.
Only in the context of human survival, scientific understanding and decent levels of happiness, that is it.
So you are comfortable with damage to habitats and extinction of species as long as humans can thrive?
I struggle with long sentences but all the contact I've had with the Occupy lot in London has tended to show me the worst in them, and I have absolutely no respect for the way they attempt to get their message across or how they behave. They are a bunch of hypocritical whining idiots. There may well be a valid point at the origin of the movement but when it has become the name under which serial squatting troublemaking vandals can cause millions of pounds worth of damage to our capital alongside middle class fantasists filming their anti capitalist messages on top end cameras and streaming them from iMac computers with Bamboo graphics tablets it has long been lost. They are definately the problem not the solution.
I'm part of the solution. I really like supermarkets and think GM crops are a terrific idea.
Whats the problem again? I wasn't listening
In the excitement of shouting at each other, I don't think anyone's really bothered to actually define it.
I generally like to be part of the problem and part of the solution.
That way they both cancel each other out and I'm not causing or solving anything.