Eco-terrorism

[jackfaire]

*nods* It's like companies that get shut down because the wages they pay are appalling to us so we work to get them shut down so they can stop exploiting those poor people who now have no jobs.

[BlaqueKatt]

*nods* It's like companies that get shut down because the wages they pay are appalling to us so we work to get them shut down so they can stop exploiting those poor people who now have no jobs.

or like the kids who campaigned to stop child labor in a third-world country for the company that manufactured their soccer balls. After the company buckled complied and fired all the child workers, most of whom were orphans, they high-fived each other and went back to their daily lives. The now unemployed child workers...well most of them turned to prostitution...great job American middle class.....


It basically boils down to forcing your beliefs, sometimes violently, onto others, with no regard as to how it may affect them.

and my brain just came up with a better example to get the point across: (with apologies to Boozy for altering her post)

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 an abortionist in the name of the unborn..

that would be a direct parallel.

Those that commit violence to further a "cause" cannot claim the moral high ground in any situation.

[Kimmik]

I despise Peta and ELF and ALF. They are terrorists plain and simple. They are no better then those that shoot abortion doctors or the extremist that blew up the twin towers or the Oklahoma building.

Animal research has saved a uncountable number of lives. Hell the second in command at Peta is an insulin dependent diabetic. Even if she uses synthetic the research came from animals.

Everything in this life can be done for good or for ill. Here are some examples:

Hunting-
Hunting for sport is a bad thing because it is wasteful and serves no purpose besides stroking ones ego.

Hunting for food is a good thing as it does help with population control, feeds a family and in certain culture provides them resources that they use.

Logging-
Deforestation is bad. It strips the land of much needed resources and cause eco system failures.

Responsible logging, helps prevent devastating forest fires, provides materials while managing the balance between harvesting and replanting.

Animal testing -

Testing for cosmetics is a bad thing to me. As it serves no purpose other then vanity.

Testing for medical research saves lives, helps understand and develop treatments for illnesses.

Groups like ALF and ELF, do not care about anyone but themselves and their Ideals. Children can die because animals should be free and never used to discover cures. People can get injured, but dont you dare take down that tree.

These groups are no better then a radical Muslim, Christian or any other fanatical group that thinks they are the only right people in the world.

[Cat]

Meh, I put some animal life as more important that some human life, though I do understand we do need animal research (hopefully we won't...though that is many years off), and I'm probably a rare vegetarian in that I support some hunting (for food, and when the hunter is legal and responsible). Though I value my cats lives over the vast majority of humans, the ones I know and the ones I haven't met.

The eco-terrorists, while I understand their causes, I cannot accept their methods

[BlaqueKatt]

Animal research has saved a uncountable number of lives. Hell the second in command at Peta is an insulin dependent diabetic. Even if she uses synthetic the research came from animals.

She doesn't use synthetic-"it doesn't work as well"-and she has explained that it's ok for her to survive off of medial research involving animals because her life is important, she needs to live to fight for the lives of animals(while killing others to keep them from "slavery" of being companion animals for humans-Peta has a higher kill rate for it's "shelter" than any other animal shelter-and they deprive the actual shelters of money by collecting under the name of "Humane Society of the United States"-which does not have one shelter-nothing it's a money grab nothing more)

[Slytovhand]

Ok, I'm hearing a lot of negative flack from the 'bad' stories, but it should also be recognised that there has been some good that has come from such organisations as well...

So - let me re-iterate my original quiery.... is 1 CEO's life worth 10,000 whales?

As against - is a 100 Ha natural rainforest worth a few tree-lopping machines??

[BlaqueKatt]

Ok, I'm hearing a lot of negative flack from the 'bad' stories, but it should also be recognised that there has been some good that has come from such organisations as well...

like what?

So - let me re-iterate my original quiery.... is 1 CEO's life worth 10,000 whales?

1 abortionist worth 10,000 babies?

whales can't speak for themselves, neither can the unborn-the right to lifers are cowards who know they are in the wrong by committing violence but claim they're doing it for the babies, change that to whales and what's the difference it's just as wrong. Terrorism is terroism, putting the prefix "eco" doesn't change that-the ends DO NOT justify the means. If their cause is so just and right why do they have to be bullies about it-talking or other legal means should work, if it doesn't maybe your cause isn't as just an you think it is.

ter⋅ror⋅ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

As against - is a 100 Ha natural rainforest worth a few tree-lopping machines??

considering they usually spike the trees-which kills the tree anyway-all they are trying to do is bully and cause injury. And currently the rainforests are being cleared NOT for logging but so ya know PEOPLE CAN PLANT CROPS and not starve. But hey as long as the well fed american middle class protesters/eco-terrorists are doing ok, and their guilt is assuaged the rest of the world can starve-right? It's condescending at best-"oh that's ok we know better than you how to do things....we read books"

I don't like bullies.

These so called "eco-terrorists" believe they're doing what's best for the planet-fine but then they refuse to even entertain any idea that runs contrary to their pre-conceived notions-they won't negotiate to find a middle ground it's "do what we want you to or else". Which is nothing but simple bullying which is the same thing they accuse corporations of doing to the public. Fine stop the dumping of toxic waste in the oceans, but give them an alternative not-"you can't dump in the ocean or anywhere else"(Yucca mountain anyone). Nuclear power is the most efficient, sustainable, and safe alternative we have to coal(IIRC Canada and France use it exclusively and France sells excess power)-yet we haven't been able to build a modern plant in the US since I was born, because of "Eco-terrorists". They don't want coal, or nuclear-they want wind and solar-which is not at all feasible. It's too expensive*, unreliable, and does not produce nearly enough power for what we use


*An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

wind and solar account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation(and have been subsidized for years-no new technology has come out to make it cheaper or more productive), nuclear is 20%

65 nuclear power plants in the US-all outdated technology(pebble-bed reactors cannot physically have a meltdown) yet they produce 20% of the power.
1461 coal burning plants in the US produce the rest-build maybe 200 nuclear plants(probably less due to technological advances in the last 30 years from what we have now) and you can close all those down-but the "eco-terrorists' only want wind and solar. Just like they want only organically grown food-which would not feed even half of the people we have on the planet today

[Greenday]

And currently the rainforests are being cleared NOT for logging but so ya know PEOPLE CAN PLANT CROPS and not starve.

Also, a lot of new effective medicines are being discovered from these plants.

[BlaqueKatt]

Also, a lot of new effective medicines are being discovered from these plants.

So people should starve, and not plant crops on their own land because there's a possibility that we might find something that can be used to make a medicine-yup typical "it doesn't affect me" attitude. Sorry I'm more concerned with people not starving than a drug company making more money.

sorry my brother-in-law has family in South America, and I have friends in Africa-people have a right to live without some sanctimonious judgmental pricks telling them they're doing it wrong.

[lordlundar]

(IIRC Canada and France use it exclusively and France sells excess power)

Not fully. Eastern Canada uses a mix of nuclear and hydro, western Canada uses oil and coal, though we're trying to get nuclear systems in place to replace the oil plants which are aging to the point of failure.

The CAN-DO reactor on the other hand, is built in Canada and used worldwide, with no failures.

[Greenday]

So people should starve, and not plant crops on their own land because there's a possibility that we might find something that can be used to make a medicine-yup typical "it doesn't affect me" attitude. Sorry I'm more concerned with people not starving than a drug company making more money.

What are you talking about? Where did you come to this conclusion that I don't think we should cut an inch of the rainforest down at all? If we don't cut down the trees or anything, how are we supposed to get the samples for research?

[Slytovhand]

like what?

I presume you've never heard of the Franklin Dam... most non-Aussies wouldn't. But I'm sure you've heard of the Amazon Rainforest though. We still have some left - just! We have even more left due to the actions of a few who routinely damaged the tractors etc so they couldn't cut down the forests. You are also aware that it's a lot easier to buy free-range eggs now, and non-battery cage eggs... again, such 'terrorist' actions have been publicised, and lo and behold, we have new regulations regarding such things. (bearing in mind that any form of terrorism does not work exclusively - it can't! All terrorists groups need a 'PR' side...)

1 abortionist worth 10,000 babies?


whales can't speak for themselves, neither can the unborn-the right to lifers are cowards who know they are in the wrong by committing violence but claim they're doing it for the babies, change that to whales and what's the difference it's just as wrong.

Nice deflection... not!

So, now you want to equate the 1 person who makes the decision that their dinner plate tastes is more important than them (and the profits that come with it); and the mass killing of 10,000 sentient life forms that have lived for 20,30, 40 or more years from a species that is heading towards extinction - with an individual who chooses to give people a choice of life-style that may in fact improve the basic quality of those people's lives, by terminating what is questionably a 'sentient life form' that has not yet lived, in a species that is slowly destroying the planet, and is on the increase with not much chance of extinction (except by its own stupidity).

Given you're previous arguments on other threads, I would have thought you'd argue better than that...

Terrorism is terroism, putting the prefix "eco" doesn't change that-the ends DO NOT justify the means. If their cause is so just and right why do they have to be bullies about it-talking or other legal means should work, if it doesn't maybe your cause isn't as just an you think it is.

Hmmm.... why not indeed? Perhaps it's because of the amount of money that's involved in bringing a law-suit against an organisation by either an organisation or individual, for an entity that has no legal rights.. a lawsuit that will cost a fortune! Presuming, of course, that there is even a legal grounding for the lawsuit in the first place! After all, can anyone tell me when the environment or animals first had any legal status?? (other than as property). Do they have any real legal status now??

And that's the whole problem - humans think they're the only thing that matters...

ter⋅ror⋅ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I need to start a new thread about this, as it will go OT....

considering they usually spike the trees-which kills the tree anyway-all they are trying to do is bully and cause injury. And currently the rainforests are being cleared NOT for logging but so ya know PEOPLE CAN PLANT CROPS and not starve. But hey as long as the well fed american middle class protesters/eco-terrorists are doing ok, and their guilt is assuaged the rest of the world can starve-right? It's condescending at best-"oh that's ok we know better than you how to do things....we read books"

I'm glad you brought up this point...

Firstly - there is, and has been for a long time, more than enough food to feed the entire planet to a healthy level! The reason it's not getting to the people who need it is because of the upper class wants it's money, and redistribution to the rest of the planet will mean food will become a readily available product, not a scarce one that therefore requires a high price tag.

Additionally, the American middle-class is the biggest waster of resources this planet has - of all types of resources. The upper and middle classes of all First World countries are where the problem lies - they have what they want to make their lives comfortable, so stuff everyone - and everything - else. IF, just per chance, all of those middle class people actually got off their butts and said that the way things are being done (eg, whale slaughtering) was both unethical and not to be tolerated, then about 500 million people all writing letters or sending emails would make a difference.

They're not... so someone else has to make a bigger impact to get their attention....

As for the 'crops being planted'... who for? The locals can, for the most part, live quite successfully with what they have. They have other needs than just the food (for those in the areas with the rainforests). And they're means of agriculture are usually far superior and eco-friendly than what the current lot of rainforests are being brought down for...eg dairy cows and wheat farms - pointless! We don't need milk (certainly not from cows) and we don't need wheat crops - for both there are far better alternatives. The locals only need to bring down the rainforests to help garner money... because of the other crap that the multinationals had told them they need to pay for...

I don't like bullies.

But it's ok for the other humans on the planet to bully other things... yes?

These so called "eco-terrorists" believe they're doing what's best for the planet-fine but then they refuse to even entertain any idea that runs contrary to their pre-conceived notions-they won't negotiate to find a middle ground it's "do what we want you to or else".

Humans are notoriously stupid! Some have taken up the stance of which you seek - it was decades ago that protests started about whale hunting by the Japanese merchants.... they're still being killed in their tens of thousands each year. Do you really want another species wiped out because of ignorance... in the idealistic view that negotiations will eventually win out? While I'd like that to be true, I don't have the faith that it works that way. (it's the same stance I have with drugs and guns - when humans are responsible enough to use them intelligently, fine. Until then, tough!)

Which is nothing but simple bullying which is the same thing they accuse corporations of doing to the public. Fine stop the dumping of toxic waste in the oceans, but give them an alternative not-"you can't dump in the ocean or anywhere else"(Yucca mountain anyone). Nuclear power is the most efficient, sustainable, and safe alternative we have to coal(IIRC Canada and France use it exclusively and France sells excess power)-yet we haven't been able to build a modern plant in the US since I was born, because of "Eco-terrorists". They don't want coal, or nuclear-they want wind and solar-which is not at all feasible. It's too expensive*, unreliable, and does not produce nearly enough power for what we use

I won't really argue with you on these points... other than - maybe the corporations need to actually, seriously start looking for alternatives. When it comes to a fight between profit and ecology, profit shouldn't the default winner in every situation... which is what's happening.

Your wind and solar argument has some merit... but it should also be recognised that it's the lack of research funding that is giving the problems with efficiency. Also, if every house in our cultures had their own Solar and Wind turbines, then there would be enough power. (do I really have to find the link?? ok, fine! Link )

I also happen to think nuclear is a good alternative for the short term.. while research goes on in other fields at the same time. Coal is just silly!

wind and solar account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation(and have been subsidized for years-no new technology has come out to make it cheaper or more productive),

I won't argue with your first figures (which say absolutely nothing about it being better or worse, only that the governments haven't implemented effective policies to encourage people to go that way), but your second point on no new technologies is complete crap! A tad old... April last year, but this one is from yesterday, and even China is heading solar!

sorry my brother-in-law has family in South America, and I have friends in Africa-people have a right to live without some sanctimonious judgmental pricks telling them they're doing it wrong.

Do they? Why? Or, more to the point, why do they have a right to live while helping to destroy an environment? Yes, I'm going back to the 'humans are ego-centric' line... which no-one has yet even looked at arguing for... (for that matter, my whale example hasn't been answered either!)

[Cat]

Sylvto...

I think we share similar views....we definitely need to changes our views on how we treat animals, the environment, and our resources. While my passionate side would go out, chain myself to a tree, destroy the equipment...my logic takes over and I really don't see how that mean helps. Do I have any wise alternative? I wish I did, I really did. (then again, all logic goes out the door when it comes to poachers)

As for the CEO and the 10,00 whales? I'd rather see the human go. Perhaps (if you are talking hypothetical situations) he/she can be replaced with a wiser person. For more hypothetical situations, the CEO lives, and those 10,000 whales die, and shit, there goes all the whales. What does that company do now?

Again, I cannot 100% justify the actions, yet I understand the cause and wish there was a happy medium...)

Sorry about the rambling, I'll try to have a more coherent thought when I get back from work

[Fryk]

My sister used to live in Morongo Valley, CA. Not too far away, there are a huge number of wind farms, hundreds and hundreds of windmills bunched together. The problem is, that wind power can actually damage the local climate. Talking to her neighbors, I was told that since these wind farms were built, the environment has dried up even further, and wind speeds have risen dramtically, leading to more and more dust storms, and less moisture in the air to sustain the plant life necessary to secure the fragile topsoil that the local plant life needs to survive. But hey, it's wind power, so it's 'green' and good, yes?

[AdminAssistant]

Murdering a person in an attempt to "save the whale" is still murder. I personally, and y'all are gonna hate me for this, don't feel a responsibility to save species. Millions of species have gone extinct without any human intervention.