Greenpeace

[zamboe]

However, the Earth also has rights. I completely agree that the poor should be allowed to USE those resources, but not ABUSE them. And fortunetaly, they very rarely abuse them. What happens more often is that greedy CORPORATIONS come in and start massive-scale wood-cutting to make huge amounts of money for their corrupt rich overlords. That is what I vehemently oppose!

What kind of Greenpeace fan are you ?

You completely agree that they USE their resources. Greenpeace DOES NOT. They don't want any use at all. You are either being hypocrit or just don't know what Greenpeace is looking for.

[Edric O]

I never said I agree with everything Greenpeace says/does. I said I MOSTLY agree with them.

I have my own views.

[emprworm]

And when you tell Emprworm "children in Iraq have no hospital", it's like telling him "terrorists have no hospital".

You are a huge hypocrite, Emprworm. You defend the poor when it suits you, and abandon them when they are no longer useful to further your capitalist cause.

lol, ha ha. I am for the liberation of children in iraq. Those children are indeed important, which is why they need to be liberated from oppression so they don't grow up and be like their dictator. Who will break the cycle of death? It must come from the outside.

[SurlyPIG]

First of all, Ace, I don't judge an ecosystem's value by how much oxygen it produces. They are LIVING BEINGS, not oxygen factories.

On which level of the food chain does our consumtion, direct or otherwise, become inhumane?

Do you feel sad when algae die?

Do you feel sad when shrubberies die?

Do you feel sad when trees die?

Do you feel sad when mice die?

Do you feel sad when snakes die?

Do you feel sad when bears die?

If your only reason for conservation is the fact that organisms are living beings than I don't see how you can eat without being a hypocrit.

I never said I agree with everything Greenpeace says/does. I said I MOSTLY agree with them.

Then please, just become a supporting member of the WWF or something. I can't STAND seeing normal, well-intentioned people supporting a relentless organization run my psycotic maniacs with no regard for order or humanity.

[emprworm]

i'm sure the people of greenpeace harvest poor living being "plants and trees" for the purposes of consumption! THAT IS SLAVERY!!! :O

[nampigai]

OOH! OOH! A cute little catch phrase! Too bad Greenpeace needs things like that to make up for their sheer lack of intelligence. You can't even spell hydrogen, but just to be fair, I'll ask you; where, exactly, are we supposed to get this hydrogen from, hmm? And the rainforests are completely sustainable if they are managed properly.

Where exactly did I say I support Greenpeace? and so what if I misspell, English isn't my first language, I really couldn't care less if I didn't spell it right you got the idea didn't you?

[Edric O]

Ace and Emprworm: When you kill something, the MOTIVE can make a big difference. Killing for food is NATURAL and vital for our survival (duh!). But tell me, when was the last time you ate a tree? ::)

Killing for items of personal comfort is a completely different matter. Only humans do this, and we must limit it as much as possible, ESPECIALLY in the case of very rich ecosystems. Such as rainforests.

[Caid Ivik]

Killing for food? We built a culture. Animals do it without any order, they hunt and hunt, without any quotes or participating on their food source planting. When human makes food, he plants fields and cares for it. Same with cows, forests and all other living stuff we use. Yes, it has some effect on nature. But civilized country tries to lower that. Or make it positive. Brazil is a poor country with many hungry citizens, which want to quickly become rich. Spreading deforestation is a show of their laziness in finding more efficient, but harder sources.

Caid, I didn't know that. I've read several times that the rainforests provide over 40 % of our oxygen- I'll look this up.

And hydrogen fuel cells would work for cars, but it is no source of energy, because the hydrogen needs to be extracted from water molecules. You'd still need a way to generate power to do this.

40? So, I heard algae produce 90% ;) But these numbers just show how few things we know about it.

[zamboe]

Brazil is a poor country with many hungry citizens, which want to quickly become rich. Spreading deforestation is a show of their laziness in finding more efficient, but harder sources.

That is the most discriminatory BS I've read today.

More efficient ? It's obvious you have no idea what you are saying.

[SurlyPIG]

Ace and Emprworm: When you kill something, the MOTIVE can make a big difference. Killing for food is NATURAL and vital for our survival (duh!). But tell me, when was the last time you ate a tree? ::)

I eat fruit all the time. That comes from trees. Everything you eat can be traced back to a plant, Edric. EVERYTHING.

Killing for items of personal comfort is a completely different matter. Only humans do this, and we must limit it as much as possible, ESPECIALLY in the case of very rich ecosystems. Such as rainforests.

You think people in the Amazon are burning it down for shits and giggles? Of course not. They burn it down so they can grow cocoa trees to make money to buy things to feed and house their families. Edric, right now you're in front of a computer. What is that computer sitting on? Is it on a desk? A desk made of wood, perhaps? And where did that wood come from? Wouldn't you call that a "personal comfort"? You don't HAVE to have a computer or a desk. You don't HAVE to go to a heated school with wooden desks. You don't HAVE to live in a building made of wood. You can live in a cave, or a mud dwelling. WHY DO YOU CHOOSE TO BE SO WASTEFUL? ::)

It's a matter of minimizing the ecological damage, Edric. Firstly, I do *NOT* support those snide, richie rich nose-in-the-air snobs that buy furniture made from Mohogoney (sp?) from virgin forests thousands of miles away. I have a beautiful and functional desk made from particle board and fake stained wood-texture covering. I don't need to bring in an endangered species to make a desk. Everyone should have a line that they draw between ok and wasteful. I do NOT want that line to be drawn by psychotic fundamentalist hippies who's brains are so permafried from smoking pot that they probably can't even tie their own shoes anymore.

[Edric O]

I eat fruit all the time. That comes from trees. Everything you eat can be traced back to a plant, Edric. EVERYTHING.

Yes. And all the energy we use can be traced back to sunlight. But that's not what we were talking about.

My point was that people don't cut down forests to eat them. And last time I checked, you don't pick fruit by cutting down the tree. ::)

You think people in the Amazon are burning it down for shits and giggles? Of course not. They burn it down so they can grow cocoa trees to make money to buy things to feed and house their families.

I think I've already said I have absolutely nothing against people who do that, as long as they're not being wasteful. My war is with companies, who kill entire forests for profit.

You don't HAVE to live in a building made of wood.

I don't. :P My house is mostly made of bricks and cement. ;)

Edric, right now you're in front of a computer. What is that computer sitting on? Is it on a desk? A desk made of wood, perhaps? And where did that wood come from? Wouldn't you call that a "personal comfort"? You don't HAVE to have a computer or a desk.

I have no alternative if I wish to be part of the civilized world. Being part of the civilized world is a basic requirement in order for me to be able to do something about our society. Without things like a computer, a house and an education, I would be powerless to change anything in the world. Therefore, in the long run, it is better to accept society as it is now, in order to be able to change it later. Even a slight change would be enough to make up for the slight damage I am doing now.

It's a matter of minimizing the ecological damage, Edric. Firstly, I do *NOT* support those snide, richie rich nose-in-the-air snobs that buy furniture made from Mohogoney (sp?) from virgin forests thousands of miles away.

Good. Then we agree.

I do NOT want that line to be drawn by psychotic fundamentalist hippies who's brains are so permafried from smoking pot that they probably can't even tie their own shoes anymore.

Neither do I. And I highly doubt the people in charge at Greenpeace fit your description. Maybe some of their ground-level activists do, but that's irrelevant.

[SurlyPIG]

My point was that people don't cut down forests to eat them. And last time I checked, you don't pick fruit by cutting down the tree. ::)

Of course they don't EAT the forests. But they cut it down so the CAN eat. There's a demand for the wood, and people pay money for it. That money is used to feed people. How do you think people in the middle-East eat? Harvesting wild fruits? Pfft. Oil for food is more like it.

I think I've already said I have absolutely nothing against people who do that, as long as they're not being wasteful. My war is with companies, who kill entire forests for profit.

Thats the first you've said of it as far as I remember. Edric, there aren't any big bad corporate enemies LEFT! That battle was won in the sixties and seventies. Developed nations now have laws that protect forests and allow only certain types of cutting and harvestations for different ecological systems. In undeveloped countries the damage is being done by individuals acting under the government.

You don't HAVE to live in a building made of wood.

I don't. :P My house is mostly made of bricks and cement. ;)

And where did the materials to make those things come from? Unless you live in a giant concrete box, there's wood in your house somewhere. Unless of course you're extremely wealth and had it custom-constructed with syramic floors.

I have no alternative if I wish to be part of the civilized world. Being part of the civilized world is a basic requirement in order for me to be able to do something about our society. Without things like a computer, a house and an education, I would be powerless to change anything in the world. Therefore, in the long run, it is better to accept society as it is now, in order to be able to change it later. Even a slight change would be enough to make up for the slight damage I am doing now.

Many people in Greenpeace would find your excuse self-serving and unacceptable. Tell me, what role does your time on these boards contribute to how you're going to change the world? How do you justify the electricity you consume by working on KH2 and playing dune?

I do NOT want that line to be drawn by psychotic fundamentalist hippies who's brains are so permafried from smoking pot that they probably can't even tie their own shoes anymore.

Neither do I. And I highly doubt the people in charge at Greenpeace fit your description. Maybe some of their ground-level activists do, but that's irrelevant.

They're far too organized for the headmasters to be normal. They spike thousands of trees, which takes both labour and money. They organize blockades, throw themselves in incinerators, and have even de-railed a timber train. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is.

I cannot see why, under your reasonable ideology, you would support Greenpeace over the WWF. It just baffles me. Greenpeace is Stalin, WWF is Gandhi.