I've heard a lot of bizarre things attributed to "hippies", but screaming and fainting at a speech by Al Gore is one of the strangest. This would be worth considering, except it's coming from someone who in the next breath is telling me that hippies scream and faint when Al Gore makes speeches. And a few posts prior asserted that DDT was "harmless at the ppm it was used", therefore OK. So obviously a different continent is involved. Possibly planet. Null set / in some ways / depends / sometimes / no / no / depends / yes, but solvable / of course. Missives from a strange and unusual world. Be interesting to visit some day.
I live in Boone, NC. Almost all of my friends and co-workers are hippies. One guy I work with lives in the mountains with no electricity, is almost 70 years old, and he tears up when Gore's name comes up. The guy is a saint around here. Sorry if you don't know any hippies personally, they are a very entertaining bunch. When Gloria Steinem came to town last year, people were in hysterics. Going to her speech was like going to a Beatles concert. It was too cold to explain the girl carried out by medics with "heat stroke". (Interesting side note, Steinem, during her speech, said that the feminist movement has caught up a lot, and gotten women 75% of what men make, but there was still another 35% to go. Which to me, completely explained the inequity in pay). During our 4th of July parade this last year, we had a float full of people laying like they were dead, piled up on one another, and a lone speaker, dressed in black, was reading the name of soldiers killed in Iraq. People went bonkers for this float, and then booed the Republican float a few minutes later. Soooo... let's stick to arguing my points instead of calling me silly, shall we? I think there are a ton of parallels between the superstition that drives the fanatics on both sides of the political spectrum, and that Maher mocks one side while ignoring his position on the other. It seems like a good debate could be had here, and that I should be allowed to poke fun of my crazy neighbors while we proceed.
Even worse, that portion of her speech was quoted the next day in our local paper, which tickled me feminist pink, because I was terrified that I had heard her wrong. I was in a coffee shop across from our university of mostly hippies, sitting with a few of the female variety, and I read them the quote, and looked up, waiting for the laughter. They were all staring at me. I had to go over the math with them twice before they saw the problem. And then they just blabbered out 10 defenses for the woman in just under 5 seconds. One of my Boone highlights thus far.
Since your argument is so far based completely on some very silly statements, and those are what we were calling silly - not you - your constraints are already met. I'm still trying to imagine a priggish stiff like Al Gore dressed up as Gloria Steinem, causing crowds of hippies to scream and faint. Or a world in which the ppm at which DDT is "used" have anything to do with the problems DDT causes. But your argument depends on the literal, factual accuracy of that kind of assertion. Without it, the parallel irrationality you assign to people like Maher has no evidence.
You should do some research. Hundreds of millions of people are dead because of fears raised over a substance that has never killed a single person. The best fear-mongers can do today is show higher rates of mutations in mammals subjected to high doses. The evil and hysteria over DDT, and the fiscal loss to the planet, is far worse than the Right's war on WMD's. It begins to approach organized religion's harmful impact on the planet. And guess what? Your interaction with me on this issue mirrors the treatment I get from the religious when I disagree with them. Calling me names, disparaging my comments with nothing contributed from yourself. Please do some reading on the issue. Source: http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/ddt.htm
I should have followed up earlier, because it appears that some people missed Maher's concluding statements. Environmentalist panic-button pushers are generally not people in any position of power or political influence (indeed the "fundie" environmentalists thus far can only depend on propaganda and mob mentality)...Bill himself does not steer the policies of a country. Al Gore is the closest to an environmentalist with power, and he is nowhere near a fanatic as your typical religious fundie. This is in direct contrast with religious fundamentalists ruling countries up to and including the USA, and basing policy on what their gods tell them. This is the danger that Maher is pointing out, underscored when he interviewed the senator in his documentary (the name escapes at the moment). Further to that, I have yet to see world leaders purposefully pollute their surroundings as willingly as they would foist their various religious beliefs onto their surrounding staff and populations. Indeed there is a push to institute policy encouraging 'green' commerce and industry. There is therefore no need to eject world leaders for deadly environmental practices. These two affiliations are simply incomparable, and a laughable red herring...Maher's points stand despite the irrelevant comparison.
I guess you missed my posts. I applaud Maher and agree with him 100%. I just don't think he applies the same rigorous degree of skepticism with his own beliefs, and that this failing creates some parallels between the behavior from the extreme Left and Right. The errors of Liberalism led to the starvation of at least 100 million Eastern Europeans during the Cold War, and yet the Left still will not speak of Communism as a complete and abject failure. I foresee a similar waste of life and resources chasing the phantom threat of "Global Warming". If anyone is taking this as a defense of religious evil, they must not know me despite my long and constant critique of religion on these forums.
Oh no I didn't miss your post but bringing up the environmentalist slant caused other contributors to go off on the wrong tangent, so I figured a virtual dash of cold water was in order. I was speaking specifically of the comparison of religious fundamentalism and environmental extremism where it concerns people who wield power. I do indeed note the similarities of the end result (i.e. chaos), however, overzealous environmentalists do not control country politics, hence are simply widespread rabble-rousers that can be dealt with by other means. Bill's major point was that we need to stop electing persons to power based on religious affiliation. And hopefully lead by example such that non-democratic countries will 'discourage' religious fundamentalist rule. (Side point...considering a political candidate's position on the environment can be considered important, whereas his religious affiliation should not be.)
Keep in mind that groups of rabble-rousing religious fanatics have quickly come into power and had horrible effects on politics. Cromwell comes to mind. As we gradually secularize (which I think we are doing), it isn't going to magically remove the crazy people from our population. I think there is something neurologically wrong with people who are quick to adopt forms of superstition as life-guiding philosophies. Are we on the verge of booting one group of poor thinkers and put into power another? It sure seems that way to me. The "Green" revolution looks like another religious awakening. The people are behaving in the same manner. All I am suggesting in this thread is that we do not drop our guard just because people aren't talking to invisible patriarchs. They could be crazy in other ways and worshiping other nonsensical causes. Environmental stasis is one of them. I argue that the naturalistic fallacy is one of the most dangerous forces in society today, and nobody is guarding against it. The dissenter is told to shut up and go away. That his or her ideas are "silly" because we already have all the facts and they gibe with our bias perfectly.
Granted, however we need not worry about a hostile takeover by environmentalists for a few major reasons - they do not have the rigid organizational structure of religion (Papacy etc), hence are not equipped for any political movement - they do not have as wide and dedicated an audience as any major religion - they are still actually viewed as slightly crazy, whereas too many people still hold religious stories as true history (for example) Now this I agree with. I always keep a few quotes in mind and one of them was this "When you remove a bad habit, you'd better replace it with a superior one, or else in about five minutes you'll have a relapse". Secularization may eventually remove religion as a world influence, but what we must take care to replace it with is a moderate philosophy (humanism or whatever) and not another madcap fad. Definite agreement here. I wasn't directly replying to you, rather the contributors who suggested that if environmentalism produces a few dissidents, we should get rid of the whole discipline, much like Maher suggests with religion. I was merely pointing out that religion is at a more dangerous point of power than environmentalism - which we still have the opportunity to nip in the bud.
Some observations: -The far Left seems to have an even greater distrust of science than the far right. This is due to the crippling effect that the Naturalistic Fallacy has on the ability to reason. Holistic medicine is superior to proven immunizations. GE crops are inferior to organic, locally-grown varieties. The scientist as a meddling mad-man is common to both sides. -Natural cycles in weather, the ozone layer, extinctions, and ecological niches are seen as bad and something to combat with no regard for the cost, or what those allocated resources could do if applied elsewhere. -The far Left fears overpopulation, leading to the same disregard for human life that the religious hold due to their mad craving for the "end-times". Several presenters at the first Earth Summit in Rio were blatant is suggesting that their policy pleas had as a major goal the reduction of human life on the planet. -The hubris of taking a short view and pretending that it is the long view is the same for both groups. The religious concoct a way out of their average of 74 years of mortality, without considering what living for an eternity would be like. Environmentalists fight against CO2 and DDT instead of using the trillions of dollars wasted to devise a method of getting our eggs out of this solitary basket. Both groups are dangerously short-sighted while pretending to have a long view. -Political correctness causes real damage. Feminist armchair theories about rape put women in danger because the truth is not considered PC. Ethnicity is not controlled for in medical testing despite repeated findings that different races respond to drugs differently in a statistically significant way. Ignoring science in favor of feel-good political correctness directly leads to death and rape, and those in favor of these principles feel that the illusion is worth the sacrifice.
The disadvantages of using GM crops as opposed to proven local crops is supported by science, global warming is not a natural cycle (unless you include everything humans do as part of nature), the ozone layer was in danger until most CFC's were banned, overpopulation is a real danger, especially when the lack of petroleum based fertilizers in the future translate into mass starvation. The left is far more attuned to science than the right. That being said, even some religious groups are using the bible to justify environmentalism (being a good steward to the Earth).
Cool, a member of the church. Welcome. Please explain how the ozone layer over Antartica was affected by CFC's largely released into the Northern Hemisphere, especially considering that CFC's are heavier than air and are decomposed by agents in the soil. There is not enough atmospheric transfer over the equator to move the CFC's if they DID float, which they don't. Population levels are already leveling off. The theories which predicted the population problems have all proved untrue. Developing countries quit producing children at insane levels once women have greater freedom over their bodies and economic status. Global warming certainly IS a natural cycle. There is evidence of crops on Greenland, which is now covered in ice. The Sahara was a grassland when the Earth was warmer. GM crops are already used in mass quantities today, which is why the output is enough to keep everyone well-fed and prices low. No harmful effects have been noticed yet. Why keep up with the scare tactics and wage a war against full tummies? Your responses sound just as crazy to me as those of a religious person. Pat answers that are not supported by observation or common sense. Just the reflexive nonsense from popular books and movements led by agenda-fueled believers devoid of skepticism. And choosing to remain that way is no different than a Christian not learning to doubt. These are the parallels and hypocrisies that I am urging people to begin noticing. Especially those of us that come down hard on religion. The last thing I want is to end up just like a group that I have such little respect for, a problem that Maher needs to wake up to if he is to remain intellectually honest.
Good point. I stress though that these sort of people however as of yet have zero effect on country policy. Thankfully. So far. :runaway: Is anyone putting these policies into effect? Might be scary. FYI it is likely I'm not in your country so I may not know everything about your political climate. Scary, but they weren't Presidents or Prime Ministers. True. (People still worry about DDT?) The key difference is that environmentalists do not (yet) have the ability to effect policy change. Religion does, in way too many of the world powers. That was the crux of the matter in Maher's video. Wow, I wondered when someone else would point that out! PC has gained an unhealthy life of its own. But I digress.
I called you no names. That is yet another obviously false statement from you, in this case easily checked by reference to my posts on this thread. You have demonstrated a proclivity for simple declarations that are contrary to fact. In this, you resemble the fundie religious, who deal in repetitions of simplistic absurdity backed by ad hominum attacks on critics. If you ever do any research on the matter, you will disover that "harmless at the ppm used" has nothing to do with the problems of DDT, and neither does its role as a human poison. You will also discover that probably the only reason DDT is capable of killing a single malaria mosquito on the planet now is that its use as a broadcast insecticide in commercial agriculture was banned in most places - thereby preventing a great deal of ecological damage and, yes, a variety of human harms (it's an estrogen mimic, and a cumulative one). The hope of malaria eradication via DDT was already dashed before the environmentalists had twigged to the extent of the problems with it. Yes it should not be a bogie. There is irrationality in the opposition to it. But the people who want to use it on malaria are not the ones pushing hardest to get it returned to the global market - industrial agriculture's behind that, same reason (and some of the same problems) they want to use antibiotics in animal feed without restriction. Short term profit, deal with the long term problems later, money talks. As for malaria, bed netting is cheaper and more effective - and permanent. Would it be enough of a hint to you to observe that rock dust and various aerosol compounds from Southern Hemisphere volcanoes are commonly found in the upper atmosphere of the Nortnern Hemisphere arctic? Unfortunately, CFCs do float in significant quantity, do eventually make it to all parts and levels of the atmosphere, and at the upper levels catalyze the destruction of ozone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion The Earth's population is increasing, and the theories that predict it will level off are the same ones that predict trouble from its growth. There certainly are natural cycles of warming and cooling. The effects of doubling the CO2 by fossil fuel combustion will not be natural. Any general warming - the most likely single effect - will be different from the warmings of the past, and will feed into the natural cycles The bulk of the modern yield increases predate GM, and are not from GM, even the ones in GM crops. The prices are low because of cheap oil and globalized corporate economics - the latter a major cause of malnutrition. Claimed absence of harmful effects is guesswork - too new, too complicated, too varied in possibility, no one really keeping track. Given what the possibilities are, you don't want to wait until you've noticed them for sure - you would much rather prevent them. And so forth. Especially patriotic, military, and religion-respecting PC. The racial stuff is still protective, to a degree - keeps people from extrapolating from drug efficacy to racial category of treatment, for example. There's another: being fact and reality based, the major and more powerful environmental organizations are not "hostile".
Not true. Ask Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace who left in disgust as the most powerful environmental force in the world was taken over by anti-technologists, anti-capitalists, and labour forces. The biggest name in the Green movement, Al Gore, gives 6-figure speeches to sell his carbon offset program and lives an extremely dirty life. Interesting facts about CFCs: The terms "layer" and "hole" are simplifications intended to scare and have no reality. Ozone is present everywhere and "layer" merely refers to a higher concentration in the 10 to 40 km section of the stratosphere. "Hole" refers to a 50% reduction in ozone in that layer, not an absence. This "hole" is an annual occurrence and was first noted in 1956. Before CFCs were in common use. There is NO OVERALL REDUCTION of ozone, just a dispersal due to the late winter cyclonic storms that occur at the end of every polar winter. These are called Polar Vortex's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex) and the Antartic one is always more severe, which is why environmentalists spend so much time in the non-industrialized Southern Hemisphere. The oceans provide 600 million tons of chloride annually. Volcanic activity produces several more million, depending on severity of periodic eruptions (One eruption in 1813 spit out 213 million tons). At the height of CFC production we were contributing 1.1 million. It has never been demonstrated that it is CFC's in the stratosphere that interact with Ozone, only that chloride has these properties and is present in the atmosphere. Keep in mind that we knew about the "hole" before CFC's were in widespread use. CFC molecules are 4 to 8 times heavier than air. You can pour the stuff on the ground, where it will "pool" in the lowest depression and be eaten up by soil bacteria. A very small fraction will find their way on eddies, and comprise a minor, minor fraction of the chloride in the atmosphere. A 1990 paper in Nature by Larsen and Henrickson found no change in ozone due to CFC's. Their study went back to 1935 and found that levels in 1962 were a low, with increases ever since. Other theories for these natural fluctuations point to solar activity and flares. The hysterical Rowland-Molina theory (the originators of the superstition that you cling religiously to) was used to develop a model by the National Academy of Sciences in 1980. It predicted an 18 percent decrease in ozone. Four years later they modified this to a 4% decline. A little later, they changed it to 2%. Observation and theory were not making happy-fun-time with one another. Just as the religious look for god's hand in all things good, the enviro-cultist looks for man's hand in all things bad. When the environmental movement received political power in the 70's, it immediately latched onto the ozone data and concocted a theory that blamed man and progress. They then launched a war on a cheap, non-caustic, effective refrigerant that was revolutionizing food transport and storage. Ignoring the original work from the 50's and 60's, they began their data when it suited them, continue to ignore multiple scientific groups that confirm Polar Vortex's are the cause for the DISPERSION, not removal of ozone, and use fear tactics in an identical manner of religious groups.
Some direct quotes from prophet Gore: "The more deeply I search for the roots of the global environmental crisis, the more I am convinced that it is an outer manifestation of an inner crisis that is, for lack of a better word, spiritual." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_15_52/ai_63948468 "The cumulative impact of the changes brought by the scientific and technological revolution are potentially devastating to our sense of who we are and what our purpose in fife might be. Indeed, it may now be necessary to foster a new 'environmentalism of the spirit'" (Emphasis mine) Al Gore - "Earth in the Balance" (from my library) Gore is a perfect figurehead for a movement that worships nature, has a religious gaia-like theory of god and spiritualism, and wishes that less humans lived on the planet. Their disdain for humanity can not be seen as anything other than the same manifestation of some innate human predisposition for superstition and pessimism. The psychological studies of out-grouping and in-grouping demonstrate that those who war with one another the fiercest are those with the most similarities. They are fighting to fill the same societal niche. Direct competition. I think the answer to healing the world's fanaticism is to show both sides how much they have in common with the people they loathe with morbid severity. When they see themselves in their enemy, it may moderate their dangerous behavior. Where Maher seeks to mock, ignoring his own fanaticism, I think it would be healthier to follow this course: exposing fanaticism on both sides, revealing the poor science, warning of a very anti-human philosophy of life, remaining skeptical in the face of rampant superstition.
