Eco-terrorism

[Slytovhand]

Hmmm - I just did a quick search for 'terrorism', and didn't get any success with this topic, so I thought I'd bring it up (given the current thread on 'boycotts').

What do you think? Is it ok for eco-terrorists to destroy plant and machinery?

What about Greenpeace trying to scuttle Japanese whaling vessels?

Sitting in trees to stop development?


Personally, I'm all for it! The more the better!

IMHO, if you can stop 10,000 whales being killed by the (at worst case scenario) death of 1 Japanese whaling company CEO... falls into acceptable losses in my books!

[Greenday]

Sitting in a tree or getting in the way, I see no problem with that. Only life being put in the way is the terrorists/protester.

Causing property damage and/or damage to their opponents? Lock their asses up.

[joe hx]

The Earth Liberation Front - or ELF - is the main ecoterrorist organization. The funny thing is that sometimes their terrorist acts do more damage to the environment than the object they blew up would release in its lifetime.

[Mr Slugger]

The Earth Liberation Front - or ELF - is the main ecoterrorist organization. The funny thing is that sometimes their terrorist acts do more damage to the environment than the object they blew up would release in its lifetime.

Yup like others mentioned I mean if you want to chain yourself to a tree fine, but I seem to recall a story about a eco-terroist group burning a bunch of SUVs at a car dealership, and it was said that they did more damage to the environment by burning the vehicles than the vehicles would have ever done because of all the stuff the SUV was made of that burn toxic.

[Boozy]

Personally, I'm all for it! The more the better!

IMHO, if you can stop 10,000 whales being killed by the (at worst case scenario) death of 1 Japanese whaling company CEO... falls into acceptable losses in my books!

Every terrorist has a cause, and every terrorist believes that their cause is worth it.

It's not okay for someone to kill a Japanese CEO in the name of the whales any more than it's okay for someone to kill the President in the name of Allah.

[lordlundar]

Hmm, we had someone labeled an eco-terrorist in Alberta named Wiebo Ludwig a few years back. What a messed up situation that was. Still is in fact.

[Slytovhand]

It's not okay for someone to kill a Japanese CEO in the name of the whales any more than it's okay for someone to kill the President in the name of Allah.

Why?

No, really, why?

It's easy to just make a statement, but there's no backing up in any way whatsoever, and I'd also say there are distinct and obvious (and extremely relevant) differences between those two examples!

[Greenday]

It's easy to just make a statement, but there's no backing up in any way whatsoever, and I'd also say there are distinct and obvious (and extremely relevant) differences between those two examples!

Murder is murder?

[Fashion Lad!]

Murder is murder?

And that's really all there is to it.

[Boozy]

It's easy to just make a statement, but there's no backing up in any way whatsoever, and I'd also say there are distinct and obvious (and extremely relevant) differences between those two examples!

The statement I made before the one you quoted was intended as "back up":

Every terrorist has a cause, and every terrorist believes that their cause is worth it.

Bsaically, YOU cannot unilaterally decide that a CEO's life is worth x number of whales. The CEO and his family would probably beg to differ. Every terrorist believes their cause is worth it. But that doesn't change the fact that they have NO right, morally or under the law, to take another person's life.

[BlaqueKatt]

IMHO, if you can stop 10,000 whales being killed by the (at worst case scenario) death of 1 Japanese whaling company CEO... falls into acceptable losses in my books!

ok the company you work for makes widgets. The manufacture of these widgets is harming the environment of the spotted-weasel fly. we'll say 200 people work for your company as unskilled labor, some single, some married, some single parents-the usual mix. Now the CEO of your company is taken out by eco-terrorists. You and the other 200 employees are now out of work. Are their jobs "acceptable losses"? The CEO's children are now orphans(she was a single parent that built the company so her children would have a future). Kids who had no choice in what their parents did are now suffering. Is their future an acceptable loss to you? The 20 people that repaired the widget machines are now out of work, the 300 people that supplied the raw materials to make the widgets are out of work. Are those also "acceptable losses"?

that's 520 people's livelihoods taken away. That's human children possibly starving, or dying from illness because their parents couldn't take them to the doctor or buy food. But I guess as long as you don't think about them it would be an "acceptable loss"....as long as the spotted-weasel fly is safe.

but wait, is it...?to take this further......

The widgets filled a niche market, with the closing of your company, 4 new companies spring up to start manufacturing widgets. Two of them use cheaper methods and not only harm the spotted-weasel fly, but also the pink frilled newt-should they now become targets and start the cycle all over again?

[Slytovhand]

Murder is murder?

Just like war is murder - yes?

And, as long as the 'murder' isn't direct, it's ok... such as the deaths of millions of people every year through starvation and curable diseases - oh, but damn, they're in a third world country and can't afford the basics of human life - oh well, tough to be them.... yes??

The statement I made before the one you quoted was intended as "back up":

Bsaically, YOU cannot unilaterally decide that a CEO's life is worth x number of whales. The CEO and his family would probably beg to differ. Every terrorist believes their cause is worth it.

But - it's perfectly alright for said CEO to unilaterally decide that X amount in profits is worth making another species extinct - yes?

But that doesn't change the fact that they have NO right, morally or under the law, to take another person's life.

(my emphasis)

ok the company you work for makes widgets. The manufacture of these widgets is harming the environment of the spotted-weasel fly. we'll say 200 people work for your company as unskilled labor, some single, some married, some single parents-the usual mix. Now the CEO of your company is taken out by eco-terrorists. You and the other 200 employees are now out of work. Are their jobs "acceptable losses"? The CEO's children are now orphans(she was a single parent that built the company so her children would have a future). Kids who had no choice in what their parents did are now suffering. Is their future an acceptable loss to you? The 20 people that repaired the widget machines are now out of work, the 300 people that supplied the raw materials to make the widgets are out of work. Are those also "acceptable losses"?

that's 520 people's livelihoods taken away. That's human children possibly starving, or dying from illness because their parents couldn't take them to the doctor or buy food. But I guess as long as you don't think about them it would be an "acceptable loss"....as long as the spotted-weasel fly is safe.

but wait, is it...?to take this further......

The widgets filled a niche market, with the closing of your company, 4 new companies spring up to start manufacturing widgets. Two of them use cheaper methods and not only harm the spotted-weasel fly, but also the pink frilled newt-should they now become targets and start the cycle all over again?

And that's precisely what this thread is about...

You see, from what I've just read here, some people obviously believe that humanity is somehow inherently more important that non-humans. I don't. nd I also think it's incredibly arrogant to presume that as well... "I'm human, so I'm allowed to rape, murder and destroy all other beings on this planet as long as I'm ok..". 'Property'??? Bah!

So, I'm sure I've just ruined my sane reputation for a while, now I'll just come down a little, and get back to other sorts of eco-terrorism... blowing up a whaling vessel - is that ok??

And let me ask a big question... is it actually ok to make a species extinct in our race for humanity's 'progress'? (after all - isn't 'murder' murder?). Does humanity's responsibility end merely with the preservation with humanity?

[jackfaire]

Is it okay for us to actively prevent a species from extinction? At this point the question is are we ready to take on the responsibility of evolution?

By preventing extinctions that is exactly what we are doing. We aren't the first nor will we be the last species to force another species into extinction. It is a part of the cycle of life. I am not saying we should go out of our way to prevent it or out of our way to cause it.

What I am saying is that it boils down to do we like Mother Nature's rules or do we want to make our own?

People are often saying how we live in opposition to nature that what we make and produce are somehow unnatural. I ask how so.

It was nature that gave us the minds that turned fire into a tool.

It was nature that gave us opposable thumbs to manipulate objects.

It was nature that has guided us and urged us along.

Are we the best of her children? I don't know.

I do not feel that I am fighting her. I feel that I am living breathing and dancing.

My life is a dance I will sometimes swallow a fly. I will sometimes hunger and need sustenance.

I am nature and she is me.

Or hey maybe I am just nuts

[Boozy]

And let me ask a big question... is it actually ok to make a species extinct in our race for humanity's 'progress'? (after all - isn't 'murder' murder?). Does humanity's responsibility end merely with the preservation with humanity?

Are you sure you want to hijack your own thread? If we go down this route, we'll never make it back to the original eco-terrorism angle.

[BlaqueKatt]

and, as long as the 'murder' isn't direct, it's ok... such as the deaths of millions of people every year through starvation and curable diseases - oh, but damn, they're in a third world country and can't afford the basics of human life - oh well, tough to be them.... yes??

Um I've been attacked by "eco-terrorists" the ALF to be precise. I worked for a company that raised animals for medical research. I worked there because the companies they supplied animals to were working to cure cancer, HIV, etc. However the "eco-terrorists" were only concerned about the lives of the rats/mice/cats/dogs/pigs/chickens we were raising-and not the countless people and animals(animals get cancer, cats get FIV) that could be saved by the research being done.

But - it's perfectly alright for said CEO to unilaterally decide that X amount in profits is worth making another species extinct - yes?

S/he is not making a unilateral decision-you think CEOs just sit around and make decisions by themselves?

Plus you brought the people that can't afford the basics f human life into it, maybe they can't afford it because um the companies they could work at to make a living were destroyed by "eco-terrorists"? Never thought about that did you?


Or that the "eco-terrorists" are preventing these people from getting food that would thrive in their region with less pesticide use, less water, and higher yield because OMG-it's being done through bio-technology!

See "golden Rice"

In 1999, researchers developed a new variety of genetically modified (GM) rice boasting the potential to save "a million kids a year" in developing countries from life-threatening vitamin A deficiency. Nearly a decade later, however, the new variety--nicknamed "golden rice" for the yellow hue imparted by vitamin A compounds--has hardly moved beyond the lab. Hampered by the controversy and strict regulations surrounding GM technology, golden rice is a testament to the obstacles facing GM crops developed for humanitarian purposes.

Foods that are rich in vitamin A, including meat, butter, milk and vegetables such as carrots and tomatoes, are often unaffordable for the world's poorest families. At least a quarter-billion children worldwide, but mostly in the developing world, have poor diets lacking in vitamin A. According to the World Health Organization, between 250,000 and 500,000 children go blind every year as a result, with half of those dying within 12 months.


They found a fix in engineering "golden rice" but the well-fed middle class Americans in Greenpeace-fought it tooth and nail-GMOs are safe and well tested
before use contrary to what "eco-terrorists" would have you believe...

"Greenpeace is unrelenting in our demand that the country's rice supply be protected from unsafe and unproven GMO technologies. GMOs threaten biodiversity, food security, farmers' livelihoods, and consumer health. "

According to laws that apply to all EU member states, a GM food can only be allowed onto the market if it can be documented using scientific data that it is just as safe and healthy as a comparable conventional product.

Let's see who to believe-a bunch of people with a political agenda or the World Health Organization....hmmmm that's a tough one