Greenpeace

[zamboe]

Not always what looks and sounds fine, actually is.

In this case Greenpeace.

I am about to accept and share the opinion that one of the ways that the comunism is keeping it self alive is through non goverment organizations (NGO) like the Greenpeace.

Just as an example, recently I participated in a conference about a great project that is about to begin it's construction in the country I live in. But the concept applies to any under developed country in South/Central America, Asia or Africa.

The thing is that Greenpeace and similar organizations as usuall are doing everything possible to stop the project (mining and hidro electricity generation in a area covered mostly by virgin forest), it's argument is the same as always. The companies interested in doing the project have obtained all the approvals and environmental goals have been achieved, but now they are facing a suit in the court, because Greenpeacec is doing all they can to stop it.

I think that these organizations are trying to keep countries like this one in the under development stage, if the investments cannot be made, then this countries will never be what we want to it to be, they don't care about the progress it brings.

Taking a look at the history, I don't find any developed country that didn't pass the industrial stage, all of them had to pass it in order to achieve the development, some countries are just trying to do so, promote the invesment but then this organizations like Greenpeace try to stop it.

Btw, I don't exagerate when I say that Greenpeace is a comunist organization, besides their most published acts in which I agree, they devote most of their time to stop huge investments in under developed countries (that is not really covered by the media) but is done, and in several times with another name (Greenpeace is mostly used only in cases when they can get a media coverage), by doing so, they do an incredible damage to several countries.

Like an example, I wonder where they were when the terrible polution was made for decades in Pennsilvanya by the iron industry, that so much progress brought to the US, Pittsburgh and the whole PA state had to pass several decades in the industrial stage to achieve the level of development they enjoy now.

Don't take me wrong. Any industrial project must acomplish ALL the regulations, we don't want industrializaton at any cost, we want it to be done the correct way. Greenpeace simply don't want it to happen.

The profesor that gave the speech, ended with a conclusive statment "the modern name of comunism is ecology, it has good things but in the bottom line is just the same thing", I am starting to share his opinion.

[Edric O]

I have always been a supporter of Greenpeace. And if they're somehow communist (although I doubt it), that just makes them better in my eyes.

You're using "communist" as some sort of derogatory term. Please advance beyond the mccarthy age.

Now, on to your argument:

mining and hidro electricity generation in a area covered mostly by virgin forest

Well OF COURSE they're trying to stop it. And I completely agree with them. No matter how many corrupt commissions approve of it, the fact is that it will destroy a large patch of invaluable virgin rainforest. That cannot be tolerated.

You live in Brazil, correct? Then I suggest you put the huge area you've already deforested to good use. You're slaughtering the Amazon. You practically obliterated your Atlantic rainforest. Enough is enough!

[nampigai]

*Note for Edric, he lives in Chile

[Edric O]

Err... oops. :)

That doesn't affect anything other than my comments about Brazil, though.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, we should bring some kind of McCarthy's age to east. Radical communists are still strong, and don't forget they weren't very ecologically sensible. That devastation continues, Romania mostly pollutes Danube. Brazil is also known for their destructivity. Unsecure oil rigs, forest destructions, liberal nature "protection" and agroculture... That's cost for progress, some build it sensibly, some - those more lazy - without it. But about Greenpeace, they shouldn't try to sabotage every factory, but why it doesn't research of eco alternatives? Or why they are against nuclear power plants, altough we all know it's cleanest and economically best source of electricity? If they would help with nuclear fusion research, they would do better.

[Anathema]

McCarthy? That guy was one of the most repugnant men ever to earn a political office in the US, #1 being Nixon (republican, btw).

The world needs organisations like Greenpeace. Simple as that. Without Greenpeace any company could dump oil in the sea just like that, and without Greenpeace there wouldn't be nearly as much protest against the destruction of rainforests.

[emprworm]

That guy was one of the most repugnant men ever to earn a political office in the US, #1 being Nixon (republican, btw).

#2 being Bill Clinton

[Caid Ivik]

To have nice enviroment, we should think as Swiss or Austrians, we all have to sense for clean nature. Greenpeace is just band of zealots, whose aggresivity distracts many people from actual problems.

[emprworm]

exactly, there are many other good environmental groups that do not use the environment as a mask for their leftist extremism. Greenpeace is wrought with whackos.

[VigilVirus]

Face it, there are way too many people in this world who don't care at all about environment. The minority cannot win against a majority of ignorant individuals.

People just don't get or get but not care that by destroying the environment they are destroying themselves.

[Dunenewt]

Greenpeace cause more problems than they solve.E.G:Blockading Nuclear Waste from Belgium which was going into safe storage in the UK

[SurlyPIG]

Don't even get me STARTED on Greenpeace. Zamboe, I think your absolutely right about those selfish, murderous, communist <Expletive deleted>.

Don't get me wrong, environmentalist groups are fine, good on them but Greenpeace is the most insanely hypocritical pressure group I've ever seen.

I think that these organizations are trying to keep countries like this one in the under development stage, if the investments cannot be made, then this countries will never be what we want to it to be, they don't care about the progress it brings.

Taking a look at the history, I don't find any developed country that didn't pass the industrial stage, all of them had to pass it in order to achieve the development, some countries are just trying to do so, promote the invesment but then this organizations like Greenpeace try to stop it.

First point, as Zam so elequently mentioned, they're selfish. They're a bunch of western-headed environmentalist cooks. They have money, enough for themselves. They come from countries that are well-off. It is SO manipulative to expect third world countries not to utilize their resources, when you come from a nation which is rich BECAUSE it used its resourcees. We got rich off our forests too. You want a better environment? Support an environmental management group. Limit the impact on the ecosystem. Not eliminate it. Humans have to eat too. Greenpeace just wants to stop that from happening.

Edric, you are correct about one thing; they are a lot like communists in that they MURDER their opponents. My neighbour's brother was a lumberjack in British Columbia about 10-15 years ago at a time when Greenpeace was in protest of logging done in that province. His company wasn't clear-cutting, in fact they sacrificed profit to do selective logging. Some of it was machine accessable but much of it was done by chainsaw. As part of their "protest" Greenpeace would head out to a forested area that was purchased for logging, and drive metal stakes at angles into the bases of the tree trunks. Dozens of people have been killed and hundreds more wounded when these trees, removed by claw machines, are taken back to the logging plants for lumber processing. When they've been de-branched, they're sent along a conveyor belt into a multi-bladed machine that slices the trunks into long pieces of lumber. When this happens to trees that have been spiked, hell is raised. When the blades hit the spike, the blad and the spike shatter. The machine is destroyed. They're essentially turned into shrapnel mines. Piecese of metal are flung in every direction, impaling anyone and anything in their path. Hundreds of casualties have come as a result of this "protest".

My neighbour's brother wasn't so lucky. At the time, Greenpeace said they selectively spiked trees, trees that were important to the forest's recovery. And they said they clearly spray-painted spiked trees with bright colours around the circumference of the trunk. Well, they lied. Jake (neighbour's brother) always checked for painted trees and even looked for spikes. But Greenpeace was good at hiding them. And on a fateful day, Jake began to cut down an unmarked, seemingly untouched evergreen. It was spiked at the base, right at the prime cutting spot. His chainsaw violently recoiled into his face. Since then is furious widow and two daughters have been outspoken anti-Greenpeace activists.

So the next time you think of Greenpeace, I want you to think of the family Jake left behind. I want you to consider what his widow felt as she confirmed the identity of her late husband at the morgue. I want you to think of the dozens of people that were impaled by shrapnel launched from autosaws that were cutting spiked trees. That is the true face of Greenpeace.

All of this for <expletive> trees. I hate it. I can't stand it. I can't believe there are people who would murder for a couple of <expletive> trees. Im not a greedy forest burning money hoarder, but all the good in the world cannot make up for what they've done. It can't. No tree or forest can equal human lives.

EDIT : Point taken, emprworm. I have removed the swearing and some of the more graphic descriptions.

[emprworm]

Don't even get me STARTED on Greenpeace. Zamboe, I think your absolutely right about those selfish, murderous, communist bastards.

though I wouldn't use the profanity, it is refreshing to finally see myself in agreement with Ace. Its been a while. I think the last time me and ace were in agreement was over oil.

[Edric O]

No tree or forest can equal human lives.

If I wasn't a Christian, I'd say YES THEY CAN. And even as it is, I'm being quite ambivalent. I don't remember God giving us the right to screw up the planet.

Humanity is the worst thing (other than asteroid impacts) that ever happened to the environment of the Earth. We are the most prolific mammal in existence, and we obliterate everything in our path. We are spreading like a swarm, covering the Earth with our hives. There are 6 billion of us, and growing exponentially. We are agents of death and destruction. Even among ourselves, we kill and maim and destroy.

Look at the night side from space. What do you see? The extent of human conquest. The hives of Man.

Our only redeeming feature is the fact that we are the only space-faring species known to exist. Maybe one day, we will make up for our sins by terraforming other worlds.

[emprworm]

If I wasn't a Christian, I'd say YES THEY CAN

in other words, No.

right?

[Edric O]

In other words, "maybe".

[emprworm]

maybe? So maybe your one and only son for a tree?

Then put a gun to your wife's head - you know, the lady you made an oath to love, cherish and hold- the one who made promises to you- yea, her. Then blow her brains out to save a pine tree. O wait, I get it...as long as it's someone else's wife or someone else's child!

Edric, you have some views that are out of line with the Bible, and a shockingly low view of human life made in the image of God. that is all I am going to say.

But you'd fit right in with greenpeace : :-

[Edric O]

Then put a gun to your wife's head and blow her brains out to save a pine tree. O wait, I get it...as long as it's someone else's wife or someone else's child!

I have no intention of ever having children, SPECIFICALLY because there are already too many people in this world. I do not wish to contribute to this problem. It is in the best interest of both Mankind and Life that I don't have children. Therefore I won't.

Edric, you have some views that are out of line with the Bible, and a shockingly low view of human life made in the image of God. that is all I am going to say.

Remember the capital punishment topic? You said something about "forfeiting the right to live"... So I guess you don't think too highly of human life either.

But you'd fit right in with greenpeace

Yes, I would. I admire Greenpeace.

[emprworm]

we are not talking about my views on human life, Edric, we are talking about yours. But just so you know, a human being, I believe, is made in the image of God and is more valuable than a shrub. Do you really believe the Bible, Edric? You think the Son of God died on the cross for a plant? But just cuz you wanted to divert the topic to my view of human life, I figured I'd share it with you.

Edric's View of Human Life:

Humanity is the worst thing (other than asteroid impacts) that ever happened to the environment of the Earth. We are the most prolific mammal in existence, and we obliterate everything in our path. We are spreading like a swarm, covering the Earth with our hives. There are 6 billion of us, and growing exponentially. We are agents of death and destruction. Even among ourselves, we kill and maim and destroy.

I have said this before, but here is my view on life. Some of you may wonder what my view is. Read closely, and you will learn something about me:

A young boy one morning went down to the beach. The tide that night had washed up thousands of starfish on the drying sand. He noticed that many of them were still alive and began to pick them up, one by one, and throw them into the water.

An older man, walking along, who saw this smiled and laughed.

"Young boy, look at them! There are thousands of them. In an hour the sun will completely dry them up and they will die. What difference can you possibly make? You are wasting your time. You cannot save them. What does it matter even if you spent an entire week here?"

The young boy, holding a starfish in his hand, looked up at the rising sun. He looked accross the beach, speckled with the creatures as far as he could see. He held up the starfish and turned towards the man.

"It matters to this one," he said, and he threw it back into the sea.

THe man in the story saw all the starfish as a giant hive, I do not see humanity like this. And you say I don't value human life because I believe in and uphold the freedom for people to forfeit their right to live? If anything, I am affirming the dignity of man by not imposing my values on them. No man is worth a tree. All men are worth enough to decide for themselves whether they should enjoy freedoms, or lose it. IT is not for us or a government to decide that. A government does not grant rights. A government protects rights....until someone chooses, of their own freewill, to forfeit them. That view is one that I have, and is one that deeply values the dignity of humanity. Your view is one held by scattered zealots, and it is not in the Bible. Greenpeace welcomes you with open arms.

[Edric O]

But just so you know, a human being, I believe, is made in the image of God and is more valuable than a shrub.

Indeed. But not necessarely more valuable than an entire forest.

And Humanity is NOT more valuable than Life as a whole.

THe man in the story saw all the starfish as a giant hive, I do not see humanity like this.

Unfortunetaly, that is exactly what Humanity is. Look around you - We are a hive.

I agree that a government does not grant rights, it only protects them.

But let's not go off-topic, there is another thread for the state-sponsored murder... err, I mean capital punishment debate.

[emprworm]

if you want to stay on topic then dont insert red-herrings about my views on capital punishment. a human being is worth more than a tree.

[TMA_1]

its okay. edric will grow out of his teenager idealism.lol too many teens are like that. argh.lol

[Anathema]

I'll admit that sometimes they're a bit to overzealous when it comes to their protests, but the world would be off worse without them.

"a human being is worth more then a tree"

Those same trees provide the oxygen for those same human beings. Besides, those trees aren't cut down for life saving purposes ::). They're cut down to be processed into furniture for people who consider themselves to be to good for ordinary wooden furniture (from trees grown specificly for production) and who instead need a nice table composed out of tropical wood.

And Ace, some companies practice selective lumbering, but most of them don't, and the forests shrink every year.

[Caid Ivik]

We all have responsibility over our world. Our world, planet of humans. We need it to serve us. But if we want to use it effectively, we need to be sensible, or we'll destroy ourselves. Greenpeace gaves nature over us, mankind, what is wrong and fanatical. As it is on us to clean the world from junk from ancestors, it's still on us to improve it. But Greenpeace won't help for it.

[emprworm]

greenpeace is not the answer thats for sure.

they do not have their priorities in order.