Conservation and Communism

[Bigshadow]

I often wonder if people in our future will look back on generations and wonder at our imprudence. We are so rich in resources and we are literally throwing it away. Important resources, like oil, will probably important in the future, therefore, our efforts at wasting them right now are incredibly short sighted and selfish.

I am looking forward to the day Hydrogen is used for fuel or better yet water with the waste being water (nuclear fission). Unfortunately, I won't see it in my time.

 

[Flying Crane]

I often wonder if people in our future will look back on generations and wonder at our imprudence. We are so rich in resources and we are literally throwing it away. Important resources, like oil, will probably important in the future, therefore, our efforts at wasting them right now are incredibly short sighted and selfish.

Not only are we using things at an astounding rate, but we are creating huge trash heaps.

When an archaeologist works at a dig site much of what he uncovers is basically "trash" that was thrown out by the previous culture. Things like pieces of broken pottery, remains of animals that were eaten, tools and weaponry that broke and couldn't be repaired. Just think of what archaeologists 5000 years from now will uncover about our culture. Plastic wraps. Diapers, styrofoam cups, old computers, hulking SUVs, Spent Plutonium fuel rods that are still radioactive. Boy, what a surprise that will be...

 

[Bigshadow]

Just think of what archaeologists 5000 years from now will uncover about our culture. Plastic wraps. Diapers, styrofoam cups, old computers, hulking SUVs, Spent Plutonium fuel rods that are still radioactive. Boy, what a surprise that will be...

As bad and aweful as it may be, the visions I had nearly had me rolling on the floor! :rofl: j/k of course.

 

[Flying Crane]

As bad and aweful as it may be, the visions I had nearly had me rolling on the floor! :rofl: j/k of course.

Yeah, I hear ya. It's like a really bad joke, but everyone is going to have to wait for about 5000 years before we deliver the punchline. Sometimes all we can do is laugh, 'cause it's really just that bad.

 

[jdinca]

One thing to keep in mind is that when (not if) our global economy faces a time of diminishing resources all of our standards of living will go down. The amount we conserve will then (and now) will determine how far down.

No argument there. Capitalism needs some tweaking to become more ecofriendly, no doubt, i.e. recycling and reusing needs to become cheaper and easier to do. I think good steps have been taken to reduce the amount of raw materials used but it needs to go further. Then we can all conserve, live well, and not wear olive drab. :uhyeah:

 

[jdinca]

Not only are we using things at an astounding rate, but we are creating huge trash heaps.

When an archaeologist works at a dig site much of what he uncovers is basically "trash" that was thrown out by the previous culture. Things like pieces of broken pottery, remains of animals that were eaten, tools and weaponry that broke and couldn't be repaired. Just think of what archaeologists 5000 years from now will uncover about our culture. Plastic wraps. Diapers, styrofoam cups, old computers, hulking SUVs, Spent Plutonium fuel rods that are still radioactive. Boy, what a surprise that will be...

I think to a certain extent, you're ignoring the recycling that is currently going on. Electronics are broked down to component parts and recycled. Cars are stripped, crushed, melted down and reused. Styrofoam cups and plates are taking up a smaller part of the "disposable" market because they do last forever in a landfill. Products made out of recycled paper are taking their place. Cans and bottles recycled to make more cans and bottles, or other products. There are a number of other examples. The amount of trash I put out every week has gone down about 60% since the garbage company issued recycle bins. The garbage usually goes out half full, while the recylce bin is usually overflowing.

There's still a tremendous amount of work to be done in this area. Our society needs to be more conscious about recycling and recycling needs to be more economically feasible. Right now, it's not. But, we're a hell of a lot better off in this area than we were 10-20 years ago.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think to a certain extent, you're ignoring the recycling that is currently going on. Electronics are broked down to component parts and recycled. Cars are stripped, crushed, melted down and reused. Styrofoam cups and plates are taking up a smaller part of the "disposable" market because they do last forever in a landfill. Products made out of recycled paper are taking their place. Cans and bottles recycled to make more cans and bottles, or other products. There are a number of other examples. The amount of trash I put out every week has gone down about 60% since the garbage company issued recycle bins. The garbage usually goes out half full, while the recylce bin is usually overflowing.

There's still a tremendous amount of work to be done in this area. Our society needs to be more conscious about recycling and recycling needs to be more economically feasible. Right now, it's not. But, we're a hell of a lot better off in this area than we were 10-20 years ago.

Nothing to argue about there.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I often wonder if people in our future will look back on generations and wonder at our imprudence. We are so rich in resources and we are literally throwing it away. Important resources, like oil, will probably important in the future, therefore, our efforts at wasting them right now are incredibly short sighted and selfish.

That is exactly my point. Oil is too valuable to burned as fossil fuel.

As for the 'conservation/communism' question, it's a misnomer. Conservation isn't the issue, as conservation is different than environmentalism. It is the cult of environmentalism, that shares commonality with marxism. If we talk about 'conservation' people will simply say 'What does recycling have to do with Communism'. It'll just get silly.

And what's the difference between conservationism and environmentalism?

Conservation is 'the wise use of natural renewable resources. It is supported and understood by a majority of people. It has been taken for granted that man, due to his ability to reason, had the power and right to improve, change and utilize the environment.'

http://www.aws.vcn.com/env.html

Environmentalism, on the other hand, is a dogmatic belief that says the current system, in it's entirety, is 'evil' and corrupt (note, Environmentalism often lends a 'moral' element to discussions) and needs to destroyed and replaced with an entirely new system (presumably, based on their material, a communistic one).

What enviromentalism believes, is that man is no better than nature, and we should assume a more natural role in natures environment, instead of operating under the belief that we have ownership of the planet. In it's more extremist form, environmentalism actually views man as a 'disease' of the planet, being actually worse than other forms of life. As such, environmentalism nearly takes on the role of cult.

The communism/environmentalism comparison is a direct result of the fact that much of what has become the cult of environmentalism has embraced communist principles as the answer to the alleged problem. They attack capitalism as 'destroying the world'. Again, they've done nothing but change the focus from 'they're exploiting the proletariat' (because, again, even the masses live better now) to 'they're exploiting mother earth'.

What's furthermore, some aspects of the modern movements in the area of nebulously defined environmentalism, mostly the more radical 'animal rights' fringe, are a direct result of Marxist ideology taken to it's ultimate absurd conclusion. Instead of trying to create a world where all humans live on the same level, they want to create a world where all SPECIES live on the same level.

Anyone who doubts that there is a direct link between the two ideologies, can simply review the material provided by the supporters of either. I'll provide some examples.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/548/548p22b.htm
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/600/bellamy-foster.htm
http://it.stlawu.edu/~quack/links.htm
http://www.orwelltoday.com/animalism.shtml
http://www.monthlyreview.org/marxecol.htm
http://www.energybulletin.net/7902.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3965

It's not difficult to show that the radical ideology of environmentalism (seperate from conservationism, which is a different concept), is directly linked to Marxist philosophy. Marxists and environmentalists, from the beginning, have been bed-mates. In fact, it is easily argued (and is by many environmentalists themselves) that Marx is the grandfather of environmentalism.


In short, protecting the environment and resources we live in, BECAUSE we live in it, is simply good reasoning.

Creating a quasi-religion around the environment, and developing a dogma that says man is a blight, and industrialization and technology are the enemy (along, of course, with capitalism) is nothing but an extension of a failed ideological concept. It's furthermore, irrational, and lends itself to irrational behavior (such as burning down buildings and destroying property in 'defense' of nature.)

Anyone who doubts that environmentalism has become a religion, need only look at the amount of damage done by the 'soldiers of environmentalism' in the 'name of the earth'. It's become a real holy war, with REAL terrorists. Nobody burns a business down simply because they 'didn't recycle'.


All that having been said, i'll agree with the statement that the US hasn't done nearly as well as it should on conservation issues.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

This could be their theme song....