Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We've managed to turn this thread into a firm, but civil exchange of concerns, and I appreciate the restraint shown by "the opposition".
As I've already said, I don't think too many of us are opposed to cleaning things up -- where the technology is clearly available and the extent of the required effort (and price tag) is known. I live within a few hundred yards of the Susquehanna (North Branch), a river that was so heavily damaged by acid mine drainage back in the Sixties (and the operators aren't Fortune 500 companies, but locals with shady connections) that it could support no fish life. That was slowly corrected over the following thirty years, but there are still some streams (our own Nescopeck Creek is one) where the concentration is too high, the source hard to get at, and the bill will be very steep.
It is a matter of "How much we can afford, and how soon".".
I don't care what the price tag is. I want clean water, and clean air, and so forth. Money is paper and ink. You can't drink it, breathe it, or eat it. Monetary value is a figment of our imagination, it's not real in the sense that our need for a clean environment is. Money is only worth something if we think it is. A clean environment is the most valuable thing there is because without it we die.
I don't care what the price tag is. I want clean water, and clean air, and so forth. Money is paper and ink. You can't drink it, breathe it, or eat it. Monetary value is a figment of our imagination, it's not real in the sense that our need for a clean environment is. Money is only worth something if we think it is. A clean environment is the most valuable thing there is because without it we die.
So you've just admitted to all of us that you aren't seeking any sort of sensible balance -- only adherence to an absolute as blind as anything in the mindset of a theocrat.
The recognition that the environment can't accept unlimited exploitation isn't all that new; laws regarding air and water pollution were on the books in most states long before the first Earth Day. But recruitment for an emerging cause often becomes a lot more effective if there's an opposition to demonize. and the origins of the post-1970 environmental resurgence are somewhat linked to a collection of other causes of that day -- usually found on the Left side of the cultural divide.
"Money" certainly is more than paper and ink, but the wealth it identifies and denominates is certainly no figment of the imagination. When identified by the workings of open markets, it becomes a recognition of the competing values within our civilization, and as a recent employee in a major internet-marketing hub, I can attest that an awful lot of our dollars are going for "green" products of every variety -- but the people who buy them have to have sufficient incomes to rise above Family Dollar and the like.
But to some within the more-rarefied strata of the Ecological Church, "green purity" is an absolute, and an attainable goal. A contaminant that used to be measured in parts per million can now be measured in parts per billion. so let's raise the bar again. (Besides, it will give our allies within the eco-bureaucracy an excuse for a bigger staff and a bigger budget.)
There are, of course, a few people down there among the Low Right who will dismiss all environmental issues as hype; many of them also link their stridency to religious belief. But in the secular, working world, most of us have to earn a living, and only so much of that process can be stifled by the pursuit of standards and goals set unrealistically high..
So you've just admitted to all of us that you aren't seeking any sort of sensible balance -- only adherence to an absolute as blind as anything in the mindset of a theocrat.
The recognition that the environment can't accept unlimited exploitation isn't all that new; laws regarding air and water pollution were on the books in most states long before the first Earth Day. But recruitment for an emerging cause often becomes a lot more effective if there's an opposition to demonize. and the origins of the post-1970 environmental resurgence are somewhat linked to a collection of other causes of that day -- usually found on the Left side of the cultural divide.
"Money" certainly is more than paper and ink, but the wealth it identifies and denominates is certainly no figment of the imagination. When identified by the workings of open markets, it becomes a recognition of the competing values within our civilization, and as a recent employee in a major internet-marketing hub, I can attest that an awful lot of our dollars are going for "green" products of every variety -- but the people who buy them have to have sufficient incomes to rise above Family Dollar and the like.
But to some within the more-rarefied strata of the Ecological Church, "green purity" is an absolute, and an attainable goal. A contaminant that used to be measured in parts per million can now be measured in parts per billion. so let's raise the bar again. (Besides, it will give our allies within the eco-bureaucracy an excuse for a bigger staff and a bigger budget.)
There are, of course, a few people down there among the Low Right who will dismiss all environmental issues as hype; many of them also link their stridency to religious belief. But in the secular, working world, most of us have to earn a living, and only so much of that process can be stifled by the pursuit of standards and goals set unrealistically high..
A clean environment is necessary for us to live. Take away clean air, water, etc., and you'll find how worthless money is then. I don't find anything sensible about the notion that some people should be allowed to poison me so they can accumulate more pieces of paper.
I don't care what the price tag is. I want clean water, and clean air, and so forth. Money is paper and ink. You can't drink it, breathe it, or eat it. Monetary value is a figment of our imagination, it's not real in the sense that our need for a clean environment is. Money is only worth something if we think it is. A clean environment is the most valuable thing there is because without it we die.
I was taught it is bad manners to take more than you need, or take something that belongs to someone else, or poo where you sleep, etc. So, the things we learned in kindergarten still apply to life in general, and apply to the environment.
If the OP means it is OK to disregard the well being of thousands or millions of humans in order to protect the possible discomfort of a tree frog or salamander, then I disagree.
Thousands of species of living things have vanished from the earth because of natural selection, or climate change, not because of humans. This is inevitable. I think its perfectly fine for the moose in Alaska to move over to allow for a pipeline, but not OK for a manufacturer to pollute a river.
I don't care what the price tag is. I want clean water, and clean air, and so forth. Money is paper and ink. You can't drink it, breathe it, or eat it. Monetary value is a figment of our imagination, it's not real in the sense that our need for a clean environment is. Money is only worth something if we think it is. A clean environment is the most valuable thing there is because without it we die.
"at all costs" has been a talking point for decades and can be found in many arguments where it is used to stifle one point of view and push a different agenda, usually a theory of bliss, world peace and paradise.
It doesn't work that way and more important, cannot be made to work that way.
Lets take the all costs idea and analyze it a bit.
If monetary value is truly a figment of our imagination, then why don't those who are willing to do something at all costs, start with themselves? Why don't they just cast off the false pretense of monetary value and dedicate their entire lives to the cause without any reward except the barest of absolute necessities such as food, water, rudimentary housing and basic clothing?
Surely, the idea that others should do something at all costs or without regard to cost should begin with those saying it right?
If the monetary value system is imagination, then why is it so important to seek contributions for such elite conventions, seminars and the pursuit of flowing money into certain people's and companies ban accounts?
If we look deeper into this idea, we will see another philosophy at work and unfortunately it is a political one disguised behind an environmental concern. It goes like this: you really don't need money, it's just paper and by itself is valueless other than the paper and ink used to make it. Since it really doesn't have any value, spending it to depletion to save the environment is a lofty goal and a reasonable one at that.
Once the environment is clean, whenever that might happen to be declared according to those that declare such things, it seems to reason that having done away with a monetary system we can continue and do without it. From that point on, if you need food you'll get what you need. The same applies to clothing, housing and other basic necessities needed to sustain life. It will be a meager existence but one in harmony with the environment and mother earth.
Of course, that doesn't come free, you'll have to work to offset the use (notice there is no costs involved because that creates a value system that can be equated to money) of the materials and efforts needed to give you those things. You'll work as much as you are able to do, up to the ability limits you have. All of your efforts will go to making sure humans maintain a harmonious balance with nature and you will use only those things needed to sustain life because anything more causes a negative impact to the environment.
Can anyone guess which system is hidden within the at all costs philosophy? I'd name it but then that would introduce an aspect of discussion not well suited to this forum but I'll let you figure it out, it isn't really hard.
I have noticed though, when it comes time to get in line to pay up and pay all, those that push for doing something at all costs are usually at the back of the line, not really leading the charge. However; when it comes time to disburse the collections, they are right up front, giving their all to insure the money that they say has no value, is properly dispersed. Naturally, they must share in the disbursement if they are to participate in the efforts those collections will fund.
All of this is usually accomplished using the guise of working within the system to change it. The ah-ha moment is scheduled for some distant date that is never marked on a calendar, it is one of those visions that constantly change or are described in such a manner that they can never be realized.
Proof" Take the simple ideas of clean water and clean air. Just what does that mean? If it means that an analysis of the water or air would reveal no impact by humans that nature has no ability to eliminate to the point of a pristine state, that becomes an impossibility so long as humans exist. Therefore, no matter how much gets done, there will always be more to do, at all costs of course. That sets up the system to run in perpetuity.
Are there not enough people on this planet that also see monetary value as an imagination that they could not band together and do what is necessary without asking for money from others? I mean, if money has no value, then why do they need so much of it?
I forgot to add a few things to my previous comment. Not everyone will participate in the harmony.
Certain people will be required to do so much more than others. These are the people that must reconcile the needed work to the ability of others to perform the work.
Then, other certain people will be required to insure that needs are met so that someone doesn't go hungry or have no clothes to wear.
Yet others will need to make plans and then revise them every so often to keep everything on track, say every 5 years.
Naturally, these certain people, having given more than their abilities allow, have greater needs that everyone else. Since they are needs, those needs must be met and after all, it will cost nothing to meet those needs since money is no longer part of the equation.
These people will work selflessly for the greater good, tirelessly managing work, resources and disbursements to meet needs, endure endless hours planning and analyzing results to insure goals are met and so on.
They will need larger houses, more clothes, better food and more accommodation because of their greater contributions, all as it should be.
They can be trusted because they jumped to the back of the line when it came time to give their all, exceeding their own abilities to watch over and insure everyone else ahead of them gave everything first. Only then, would they sacrifice their money, instead suffering and bearing the burden of having money while others do without.
These are the leaders, the true givers that know how to guarantee the future of the environment, the elimination of scourges like money, wealth, prosperity and individual achievement.
I hope this makes it all clear and doesn't send anyone into a depression because of the new found knowledge that it is money that is the root of all evil, challenged only by the next worst thing, personal responsibility and personal achievement.
I'm going to cite the post below as an example of environmentalism radicalized to the point where it does its cause more harm than good:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotandHumid
You'd think in this day and age with Governor Scott doing everything in his power to eliminate or cut funding to programs that help the poor and working classes in the name of balancing the budget of the State of Florida, that he would be pushing for a law to require that all beverage containers be required to have a deposit placed on them to facilitate their return to stores so they can be picked up and delivered to job creating recycling companies instead of ending up in costly landfills and littering Florida's highways and water ways when beverage containers are thrown there by careless people. Large amounts of State of Florida funds are spent yearly for clean up crews to pick up after litterers and state funds are also being spent to close down and clean up landfills that are shown to be leaching toxins into underground and nearby fresh water sources.
Governor Scott can continue to deny that Global Warming is happening but he can't deny the fact that the water table in many parts of Florida has been rising due to rising sea levels with salt water moving upwards through the porous soil under Florida. That salt water had been pushing the lighter weighing fresh water upwards and that fresh water will eventually reach the bottom of even more landfills that will contaminate the underground fresh water which many of Florida's cities draw their drinking water from.
Why haven't the citizens of Florida taken it into their own hands by passing an amendment to the state constitution to protect their drinking water and preserve state funds that could be used for better purposes, as other more ecologically progressive states that depend on tourism and ground water for drinking water have done, that requires that beverage containers have a deposit put on them to facilitate their return to stores where those recyclable beverage containers would then be taken from to recycling facilities instead of ending up littering our landscape, thrown in our water ways and helping to fill up landfills and creating the need to create even more toxin leaching landfills?
The linking pf several environmental issues in a single all-encompassing rant is a pretty clear indication that the poster is letting someone else do most of the "thinking", and a legitimate need to learn more about the phenomenon of climate change has been badly discredited due to its oversimplification into the scare campaign about "Global Warming". Below is an example from last year:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
Consider, for example, The Carbon Diaries, a work for some readers by British author, and climate change activist Saci Lloyd which, at the time of its publication in 2008, predicted the sprouting of palm trees in London as early as 2015. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but clearly, some people are prone to take greater liberties with the facts.
Eight years have now passed since Mr/Ms Lloyd raised the alarm, and London shows no sign of sprouting palm trees. The "experts" (many of whom have a substantial potential for personal and financial benefit if their theories are adapted) continue to scrape for "new" data to substantiate their claims -- but as with the Brexit vote and the current turmoil in American Presidential politics, it appears that the tactics of oversimplification and appeals to the natural short-sight of the young and the lesser-educated are about to backfire.
Again, I don't want to discredit all environmental concerns; I'm old enough to recall when a short journey off the main highways was often a trip to parts of Rural America that looked like Lil' Abner's Dogpatch. But this progress was made possible largely by an American dominance of the global economy that no longer holds; we are going to have to find more native-born Americans to do our dirty, unwanted jobs for competitive wages -- Mr. Trump's promises notwithstanding
We are going to have to examine all our environmental concerns carefully -- determine which of them holds the greatest potential for serious damage, and how soon, and how much the nation can afford.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 06-26-2016 at 07:58 PM..
I don't care what the price tag is. I want clean water, and clean air, and so forth. Money is paper and ink. You can't drink it, breathe it, or eat it. Monetary value is a figment of our imagination, it's not real in the sense that our need for a clean environment is. Money is only worth something if we think it is. A clean environment is the most valuable thing there is because without it we die.
Natural water in general is not very clean or potable.The degree that is process water is required to be considered clean is way cleaner than the water that originally came from the ground.
I also was born in 1949. I grew up in the oil country. I remember when you couldn't see two miles through the smog and haze in Houston. I remember reading about the Donora smog in Pittsburg. I remember the Potomac River so polluted that you couldn't swim in it. I remember the environmental damage caused by the TVA Kingston Ash Pond collapse.
Do you remember these things? Environmentalists are the people working to make this world a healthier place to live.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
