>
> I feel that the largest failing of most environmentalists is their
> hostility to and ignorance of capitalism. This is simply the most
> counter-productive view possible.
I'd distinguish between capitalism per se and huge multinational corporate
entities that have a life of their own. Corporatoins are given the legal
rights of a citizen (like, to accumulate property/profit) but not the
responsibilities. This is evil.
>
> It seems we have all these critiques of capitalism, but no one can come
> up with a better solution. And this is why the environmentalists are
> eventually going to become authoritarian. Since they can't stand how
> things actually work, and they can't come up with a reasonable
> alternative that most people would adopt voluntarily, they are going to
> have to use violence to change things.
>
welll when ecodisaster makes the world start falling apart, there's going
to be violence. Like food riots maybe. Only a frew extremely fringe groups
advocate using violence *now*.
to the extend that I do understand how things work...I think it sucks.
WE could save the environment if it weren't for selfish rotten human
nature getting in the way. Evolution drives u s to short planning horizons
not the long ones needed for environmental protection.
> Which of course means that most of their goals will never be fulfilled,
> since violence will be met with violence, and the environmentalists
> will be discredited. I'm always astonished by how many
> environmentalists turn to authoritarian solutions by reflex. It just
> makes no sense to me. The first thing authoritarian governments do is
> to eliminate challanges to the government. As world history has shown,
> it really makes no difference what ideology authoritarian movements
> have before the achieve power, they are all pretty much the same
> afterwards.
Are all laws authoritarian just because having to comply with them annoys
you? or affects the bottom line of your business? And by "authoritarian"
do you mean communist (no capitalism) or something like China, which gave
up on Marxist ideology but is still totalitarian? (Hey, five year economic
plans are better than three month ones. THey actually managed to reduce
their CO2 emissions, getting rid of t he coal burners in favor of cleaner
(but stil fossil) natural gas...)
>
> We cannot trade our freedom for environmental protection. Not because
> such a bargain might not be worth it, but because it will never work.
> We can have freedom and environmental protection, but the minute we
> surrender our freedom for some other goal we find the we have lost both.
>
"To hell with the planet, let me do what I want and so there!"
I hope you live to be 500 years old so you will personally see the
consequences of your actions. (Work on anti aging treatments now!) Your
descendants will not appreciate your attitude. Compromises (and the longer
we put it off the MORE Painful it will be) will be necessary to avert
catastrophe. You are free to commute solo in an SUV if you want to. Well
then, pollution will choke us, global warming will ruin many agricultural
areas and cause famines, new plagues will emerge, political chaos will
cause hideous wars but you'll still have your "freedom." Until people get
sick of this horrible world and begin to curse your name. *HOW* can
individual freedom be more important than the future of the entire planet,
of whole generations yet unborn? I don't call that freedom. I call it
selfishness.
Kristin
