Eco-terrorism [Archive]

Slytovhand

11-21-2009, 06:16 AM

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... :D

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

11-21-2009, 07:55 AM

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

11-21-2009, 12:37 PM

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

11-21-2009, 04:35 PM

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 (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/307)"

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 (http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/debate/721.docu.html) and well tested (http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/41.evaluation_safety_gm_food_major_undertaking.htm l)
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 (http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/world/2008/4/1/27503/Greenpeacedemands-GMO-free-rice-supply-on-eve-of-World-Consumer-Day) or the World Health Organization. (http://www.gmoafrica.org/2005/06/who-reaffirms-safety-of-genetically.html)...hmmmm that's a tough one

jackfaire

11-21-2009, 05:03 PM

*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

11-21-2009, 07:15 PM

*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

11-21-2009, 09:22 PM

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

11-21-2009, 10:39 PM

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

11-22-2009, 12:14 AM

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

11-22-2009, 07:08 AM

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

11-22-2009, 05:20 PM

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 (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/1601/why-organic-food-cant-feed-world)-which would not feed even half of the people we have on the planet today

Greenday

11-22-2009, 05:49 PM

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

11-22-2009, 06:09 PM

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

11-22-2009, 10:22 PM

(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

11-23-2009, 02:23 AM

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

11-23-2009, 05:46 AM

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 (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/handouts/houses.htm) )

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 (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/issues/2008/april/germanyconsolidatessolarpowerlead.asp), but this one is from yesterday (http://news.cnet.com/greentech/solar/?tag=rtcol;tags), and even China is heading solar! (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/26/content_10720497.htm)

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

11-23-2009, 11:35 AM

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

11-23-2009, 12:17 PM

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

11-23-2009, 01:56 PM

Greenday

11-23-2009, 02:55 PM

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.

I pretty much agree with you. I don't think we should go out of our way to make them extinct, but I don't think murdering is the way to go about preventing it. Human life is more important than any other kind of life.

lordlundar

11-23-2009, 04:58 PM

What really irks me about these "eco-terrorists" is that they seem to think that nature needs human's help to survive. Umm, no. If the universe really wanted us gone, there is not a single damn thing we could do to stop it.

On the History Channel, there's a show called "Life without people" and it covers theories on how the earth would continue if there were no people left. One of the questions asked is "What would the earth do after all the humans left?" My response? It would say "I'm going to take back every piece of me that humanity took." and then proceed to do it.:D

protege

11-23-2009, 06:09 PM

On the History Channel, there's a show called "Life without people" and it covers theories on how the earth would continue if there were no people left.

I've seen that show. But, has anyone seen the current pictures of the Chernobyl area in the Ukraine? (With the mention of nuclear power, I thought I'd throw that tidbit out there.) For those who don't remember, that area was the site of the worst nuclear accident ever. Lots of people had their lives turned upside down, or outright destroyed when that happened. Even now, the cities nearby the plant still survive. Many things are still intact, but are slowly returning to nature. There are apartments with trees growing up through the floors; new moss clinging to radioactive rocks, etc. In other words, the area has already started recovering from the accident. Still dangerous as hell though. In other words, nature will continue to do what it does best. It will continue to adapt to changing conditions.

But, I do agree that we need something other than wind and solar power. Both are simply too damn expensive and not nearly as powerful as a nuke plant. Yet, because of Chernobyl--which was a *human* caused accident--it'll never happen in the US. From what I understand, that plant blew up, because all of the safety mechanisms were disabled during a power test! It wasn't an equipment failure at all!

Then there's the Three Mile Island's accident. Total opposite of Chernobyl--the amount of radioactive material released was actually pretty small. You're exposed to more radiation during your lifetime than was actually released at TMI.

Greenday

11-23-2009, 06:48 PM

Yet, because of Chernobyl--which was a *human* caused accident--it'll never happen in the US. From what I understand, that plant blew up, because all of the safety mechanisms were disabled during a power test! It wasn't an equipment failure at all!

The plant was being run by a guy who knew a guy so that's how he got his job, not because he earned it. The higher ups of the company were coming by to check how things were going so the moron wanted the efficiency ratings to by REALLY high so he had the plant push all the equipment farther than their safety ratings allowed.

protege

11-23-2009, 08:04 PM

Actually, according to someone from the area (http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter2.html), the test was being run to see how long the turbines would spin if the electrical power supply went off line. But, from what I've read though, many industries in the Soviet era were controlled by bureaucrats...many of whom were miles away, or had no idea what they were doing.

AdminAssistant

11-23-2009, 09:36 PM

BlaqueKatt

11-24-2009, 12:39 AM

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).

ok the person that murders the CEO to "save the whales" believes their cause is noble-the whales can't speak for themselves-correct?(in your mind ok to do)

What is a pro-lifer thinking when they murder an abortionist to save the unborn that can't speak for themselves-they believe it's a noble cause.(not ok-but there is no difference in the mindset of the perpetrators of either act which is what I'm trying to make you see)

All terrorists believe their cause is the noblest out there that's why they're willing to do such extreme things-look at what the IRA and PLO have done in the name of their "noble causes"

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..

Yes because lawsuits are the only way to do things-there are no such things as petitions, lobbying, letter writing campaigns.....:rolleyes:

As for the 'crops being planted'... who for? The locals can, for the most part, live quite successfully with what they have. sure (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/686490)
they (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280536) can:rolleyes:
Rains have failed, crops are sparse and animals are dying,
Agriculture has virtually collapsed, nearly 4 million Kenyans who cannot produce, or afford, daily food.

On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths
On the average, 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths

wow they're doing great by themselves-oh wait they've had 3 years of drought...

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....

By Americans-of course-the arrogant ignorant americans that no one listens to...

it's the same stance I have with drugs and guns - when humans are responsible enough to use them intelligently, fine. Until then, tough!

all I can say to this without seeing red is-don't be condescending-and who gets to be our nanny and decide that we're old enough to get out of diapers....
again the attitude of we know better than you in our smug superiority.....wait that's the stance most eco-terrorists take. You don't know any better we must save you from yourself.......it's bullshit.....I'm 34 I don't need a nanny thank you...

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.

oh then what exactly are they doing with the billions of dollars in subsidy money they're getting? And don't forget the 2.25 billion (http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2252121/congress-approves-billion-solar) in grants strictly for R&D in wind/solar only.....

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!

and the ECO-terrorists protest, block, and cause horrendous property damage to any attempted nuclear plant in the US-so how's that gonna happen?

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!)

amazing how the poeple that say others have no right to live never volunteer to remove themselves or their loved ones from the "overpopulation problem" only poor people in third world countries. When you get sick do you go to the doctor, or think well I don't have a right to live? Hypocrisy gotta love it.

And I did answer your whale question-you just don't want to see that every terrorist believes their cause is noble-from Eco-terrorists, to the PLO, to Right to lifers.....adding the ECO prefix does not justify anything.

Nyoibo

11-24-2009, 04:21 AM

Rains have failed, crops are sparse and animals are dying,
Agriculture has virtually collapsed, nearly 4 million Kenyans who cannot produce, or afford, daily food.

On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths
On the average, 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths

wow they're doing great by themselves-oh wait they've had 3 years of drought...

And this is what happens when you overpopulate an area that cannot sustain that level of population, oh and drought for 3 years? Boohoo, from 2002-2008 most of Australia has had the lowest rainfall on record for 100 years, 65% of Australia's viable agricultural land is currently in drought, but we're not so overpopulated.

Slytovhand

11-24-2009, 07:16 AM

ok the person that murders the CEO to "save the whales" believes their cause is noble-the whales can't speak for themselves-correct?(in your mind ok to do)

What is a pro-lifer thinking when they murder an abortionist to save the unborn that can't speak for themselves-they believe it's a noble cause.(not ok-but there is no difference in the mindset of the perpetrators of either act which is what I'm trying to make you see)

All terrorists believe their cause is the noblest out there that's why they're willing to do such extreme things-look at what the IRA and PLO have done in the name of their "noble causes"

True, I don't have an issue with what you are saying here... I do have an issue in how it's being portrayed as being exactly the same thing. BTW, as for the IRA and the PLO - firstly, those things are brought about due to human ignorance - humans think what's more important for them is the only thing that is important. Secondly, the IRA and the PLO actually seemed to have succeeded (in some measure) in their goals. (FTR, no, I don't approve of their actions, but I can at least understand them...).

Yes because lawsuits are the only way to do things-there are no such things as petitions, lobbying, letter writing campaigns.....:rolleyes:

Oh, there are such things... they just have a tendency not to work - mostly because most people don't bother with such things. If you got 100million people doing such things, a petition or lobbying or letters will have an effect. When it's only a few hundred. Extreme measures occur when people don't do anything. Or, when that something that has irreversible consequences, change takes so long to come about to make it almost too late. If something needs to be fixed now, then getting in the petitions and the lobbying etc which might work 2 years from now isn't going to work effectively.

sure (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/686490)
they (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280536) can:rolleyes:
Rains have failed, crops are sparse and animals are dying,
Agriculture has virtually collapsed, nearly 4 million Kenyans who cannot produce, or afford, daily food.

On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths
On the average, 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths

wow they're doing great by themselves-oh wait they've had 3 years of drought...

??? :confused: Your links and information are rather irrelevant to this argument. You said that people were being stopped by the eco-terrorists from cutting down forests so they can plant crops to feed themselves... what you've said here has absolutely nothing to do with this... For that matter, the links (particularly the second) actually back up what I was referring to...

By Americans-of course-the arrogant ignorant americans that no one listens to...

Sure??? I thought it was Greenpeace. I remember Dr Suzuki (Canadian - Japanese) talking about this decades ago. And Sir David Attenborough (English). Both of these big name individuals have been campaigning for about 40 years on these subjects (environmentalism)... lots of lobbying, petitions, political letters... now, 4 decades later, we're just waking up to some of these issues....

all I can say to this without seeing red is-don't be condescending-and who gets to be our nanny and decide that we're old enough to get out of diapers....
again the attitude of we know better than you in our smug superiority.....wait that's the stance most eco-terrorists take. You don't know any better we must save you from yourself.......it's bullshit.....I'm 34 I don't need a nanny thank you...

Your aggravation with my arrogance is also irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves. (btw - you've expressed fairly similar ideas in other threads... so what's the difference here?)

oh then what exactly are they doing with the billions of dollars in subsidy money they're getting? And don't forget the 2.25 billion (http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2252121/congress-approves-billion-solar) in grants strictly for R&D in wind/solar only.....

Sorry, let me clarify... R&D, and initiatives for actual production! And some extremely serious ways to get it happening on a mass level. There are technologies out there that are far more eco-friendly, but at the moment, they're 'too expensive' (read, we can still bleed out more profits the way things are going). (did you happen to check out the links I provided??)

and the ECO-terrorists protest, block, and cause horrendous property damage to any attempted nuclear plant in the US-so how's that gonna happen?

I'm arguing for understanding eco-terrorism - I'm not suggesting they're always right... but in some cases, I would think some things are obvious - or do you disagree?? Does nature have infinite patience, and thus it doesn't really matter what we do?

amazing how the poeple that say others have no right to live never volunteer to remove themselves or their loved ones from the "overpopulation problem" only poor people in third world countries. When you get sick do you go to the doctor, or think well I don't have a right to live? Hypocrisy gotta love it.

You now expect the 'serious' eco-friendly to commit mass suicide??? Hmmm - not a line I'd expect you to take.... Oh, trust me, I'm not one to think the 'overpopulation problem' needs to be dealt with only at the Third World level. I have only asked the question (yet to be answered) why human life is more important than any other sentient life form's... Rhetoric is not an answer. (I could also point out, as Nyoibo has - the over-populated areas coincide with the areas that are having the major problems. (Australia just happens to be extremely lucky - large land mass, plenty of arable land, very low population...)

Ideally, I'm more for a socialist world, not a capitalistic one.... a world where economy is more important than life.

And I did answer your whale question-you just don't want to see that every terrorist believes their cause is noble-from Eco-terrorists, to the PLO, to Right to lifers.....adding the ECO prefix does not justify anything.

I presume then (perhaps rather foolishly) that you think 10,000 whales are less important than 1 CEO - yes? If so, why?

(ok, I need to do that other thread now... although there are similar out there...)

Human life is more important than any other kind of life. Ummm - that'll take a massive thread, and almost a de-rail, though it's directly linked, and will be very controversial... but why?

What really irks me about these "eco-terrorists" is that they seem to think that nature needs human's help to survive. Umm, no. If the universe really wanted us gone, there is not a single damn thing we could do to stop it.

I'm suggesting that it doesn't need human's help to survive - it does need humanity to wake up and stop being so destructive. Cos humans have forgotten (ignored) the fact that we're still a part of nature as well - and when the time comes, we'll get what we've been giving.

Savannah

11-24-2009, 08:14 AM

Damnit. I somehow lost a whole long reply, complete with links and everything. :mad: Here goes (again):

I think that ELF/ALF/etc harm their cause more than they help. Slytovhand, do you believe that you can get the average person interested in supporting something that they associate with "crazy extremists"? You will need people's support if you want to change things permanently.

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?

When extinctions are occurring at a rate similar to that of other mass (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html) extinction (http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html) events (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html) and we are contributing to that rate? Yes. We already have taken on the responsibility of evolution with animal and plant domestication, not to mention medical procedures that keep humans alive who would normally have died.

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.

I'm more concerned about the loss of one of the biggest sources of oxygen on the planet. The amazon rainforest produces 20% of the world's oxygen and could be gone in 40 years (http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/amazon.htm) (less considering the article was written in 2003). That's bad for pretty much every living thing on the planet. Drugs derived from plants help more than just me.

We have no idea how many species have been lost before we even discovered them and we don't know whether they were essential for the ecosystem's long-term survival. Furthermore, as the linked article pointed out, loss of rainforest = loss of indigenous tribes, including the people you are worried about.

amazing how the poeple that say others have no right to live never volunteer to remove themselves or their loved ones from the "overpopulation problem" only poor people in third world countries. When you get sick do you go to the doctor, or think well I don't have a right to live? Hypocrisy gotta love it.

I believe that overpopulation will kill us. Therefore, I will never have a biological child and if I conceive accidentally, I will abort. I support all forms of birth control and tentatively support any policies like China's one child per family rule. (Tentatively due to concern over how it would be enforced and what would happen to existing big families.) Just sayin'.

Also, I completely agree with your eco-terrorist/pro-life murderer analogy. So often it's easy to forget that just because other's views are contrary to ours doesn't mean that they hold them any less dearly (or blindly ;)).

Human life is more important than any other kind of life.

OK, I'm genuinely curious. Why? I don't see anything particularly special about us.

EDIT: And I see I've drifted even more off topic and missed answering the main point of the thread trying to recreate my earlier post. Eco-terrorism: cause sometimes good, method completely unacceptable. By the way, where are you getting the whales vs. CEO number, Slytovhand? I was under the impression that most eco-terrorism targeted the workers and their equipment, not so much the higher-ups who are harder to get at and less immediately connected to whatever the eco-terrorists are protesting.

Greenday

11-24-2009, 02:38 PM

OK, I'm genuinely curious. Why? I don't see anything particularly special about us.

I'm a human, thus my species comes first to me.

BlaqueKatt

11-24-2009, 11:53 PM

And this is what happens when you overpopulate an area that cannot sustain that level of population, oh and drought for 3 years? Boohoo, from 2002-2008 most of Australia has had the lowest rainfall on record for 100 years, 65% of Australia's viable agricultural land is currently in drought, but we're not so overpopulated.

hmmm considering it's the second largest continent-only larger is Asia....
africa-population 1,001,320,281 density 33.0 per sq Km
asia-population 4,162,966,086 density 89.07 per sq Km

so.....by your theory Asia should be worse off yet it isn't

You also have more money to pay for birth control, prenatal care, doctors for your children-immunizations-clean drinking water....

look (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html)at their infant mortality rates...This entry gives the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year; included is the total death rate, and deaths by sex, male and female. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country.

average of Africa is 180 per 1000 die before age one-Austrailia it's 4 per 1000, and the horribly overpopulated japan 3 per 1000 china(more overpopulated than anywhere else) 20 per 1000-overpopulation causing it is BS.

Africa is the world's second-largest and second most-populous continent, after Asia. At about 30.2 million km² (11.7 million sq mi) including adjacent islands, it covers 6% of the Earth's total surface area and 20.4% of the total land area.[2] With a billion people (as of 2009, see table) in 61 territories, it accounts for about 14.8% of the World's human population.

Oh, there are such things... they just have a tendency not to work - mostly because most people don't bother with such things. If you got 100million people doing such things, a petition or lobbying or letters will have an effect. When it's only a few hundred. Extreme measures occur when people don't do anything. Or, when that something that has irreversible consequences, change takes so long to come about to make it almost too late. If something needs to be fixed now, then getting in the petitions and the lobbying etc which might work 2 years from now isn't going to work effectively.

Maybe the reason people Won't assist them is because of their previous bullying and terrorist acts? I see quite a few of them as zealots and whackjobs-so not so willing to assist them...pretty sure I'm not the only one....

Sure??? I thought it was Greenpeace.
yeah the group (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n38_v13/ai_19969858/) their own founder left because (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882720657033391.html) "after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

Hmmm environmental entrepreneurs---sounds like greed to me....

I'm arguing for understanding eco-terrorism - I'm not suggesting they're always right

I don't think any form of terrorism is right-EVER.

You now expect the 'serious' eco-friendly to commit mass suicide??? Hmmm - not a line I'd expect you to take.... Oh, trust me, I'm not one to think the 'overpopulation problem' needs to be dealt with only at the Third World level.

But everyone that says "look at the overpopulation," or takes the cavalier attitude toward the 20% infant mortality rate in Africa with "well their overpopulated" would never say the same thing about their own country or family.

I could also point out, as Nyoibo has - the over-populated areas coincide with the areas that are having the major problems.

Yup Asia the most heavily populated landmass on the planet is doing just terribly......

I presume then (perhaps rather foolishly) that you think 10,000 whales are less important than 1 CEO - yes? If so, why?

I don't put a value on human or animal life, or plant life for that matter-life is life. Heck I don't even kill mosquitoes, I rescue earthworms from sidewalks-life is life.

*example of what greenpeace is currently up to
Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure.

It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has

Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water,

jackfaire

11-25-2009, 10:58 PM

When extinctions are occurring at a rate similar to that of other mass (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html) extinction (http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html) events (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html) and we are contributing to that rate? Yes. We already have taken on the responsibility of evolution with animal and plant domestication, not to mention medical procedures that keep humans alive who would normally have died.
.

Ok. Because what that means is stopping evolution. We now wish to throw a monkey wrench. No longer will we accept survival of the fittest. Nothing is allowed to change because extinction is bad so all species must be saved. It is now our decision to balance the ecosystem instead of leting nature do it.

Cat

11-26-2009, 01:19 AM

Why should letting nature take its course (ie, not aiding endangered species) not be extended to humans?

After all, the earth will take care of herself :)

Nyoibo

11-26-2009, 03:37 AM

hmmm considering it's the second largest continent-only larger is Asia....
africa-population 1,001,320,281 density 33.0 per sq Km
asia-population 4,162,966,086 density 89.07 per sq Km

so.....by your theory Asia should be worse off yet it isn't

Um, no, you seem to be under the impression that the size of a country or continent is directly proportional to its ability to sustain a population, it's not, Australia is not much smaller than the U.S (excluding Alaska) however a lot of Australia is uninhabitable and cannot sustain a population the size of the US.

Boozy

11-26-2009, 12:41 PM

That's what I was thinking. Canada is the second largest country in the world, but there's that whole Arctic Tundra and Canadian Shield thing. Most of the country is either uninhabitable or is so expensive no one can really live there (see Gravekeeper's posts on CS about shipping fees to Nunavut).

BlaqueKatt

11-27-2009, 11:35 PM

and sorry my bad-the Amazon is being cut doew to grow sugarcane (http://chemicallygreen.com/rainforest-sugarcane/)and corn to produce biofuels (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17500316/)-because say it with me...

"Ethanol and biofuels are better for the environment"-so the Eco-terrorists caused their own damn problem now didn't they?

"Primate scientist Jane Goodall said on Wednesday the race to grow crops for vehicle fuels is damaging rain forests in Asia, Africa and South America and adding to the emissions blamed for global warming."

Hypocrisy at its best. Has anyone considered the long range effects on the environment, climate change and habitat destruction of complete ecosystems after the magnificent rainforests are destroyed and clear burned to kill all vegetation? It seems Brazil cares more about revenues from biodiesel products, but has little regard for its rainforest and its inhabitants. 20% of Brazil’s portion of the rainforest has already been destroyed. How many more acres of virgin rain forest will be destroyed for the biofuel’s cause.

protege

11-28-2009, 04:16 PM

"Ethanol and biofuels are better for the environment"-so the Eco-terrorists caused their own damn problem now didn't they?

Somewhat along those lines...did anyone catch the show about how ships are being scrapped in Bangladesh? Cruise ships, old freighters, and tankers are towed over there, and cut up for scrap. Why? Well, someone has to recycle the parts...and with the NIMBY's and environmentalists in the US...the industry had to move somewhere else. Somewhere, where people are poor enough that they'll work in dangerous conditions. Not only is cutting up the ships dangerous, but they're full of all sorts of nasty chemicals. These people have to choose between putting food on the table, or killing a fish, to put it simply. As much as I hate to see wildlife suffer, if I'm put in that position, I'm going to put my family first. Sorry to have to think that way...

jackfaire

11-28-2009, 07:16 PM

Thinking about other species as having equal or more rights than you is the luxury of people who do not have to decide if they feed their family or they spare the life of an endangered species.

I can never see parents saying to their kids, "Sorry kids we have to go hungry that bird is endangered and there is plenty of us humans."

Slytovhand

11-29-2009, 06:15 AM

"Ethanol and biofuels are better for the environment"-so the Eco-terrorists caused their own damn problem now didn't they?

How do you reach that conclusion?

An organisation (or country) that finds a way to profit from new technologies now means that the technology is bad?

How many more acres of virgin rain forest will be destroyed for the biofuel’s cause. Again, it's not the 'fault' of the new technology - though I agree with your sentiment.. don't cut down the Amazon!

Thinking about other species as having equal or more rights than you is the luxury of people who do not have to decide if they feed their family or they spare the life of an endangered species.

By logical extension, this should mean a luxury consumer in First World countries should think "I should buy more, and waste more, so that people on the edge of survival have a productive means of making more money - and stuff the environment. So, the whole idea of cutting back our consumerist tendencies is complete bunkum".

Fryk

11-29-2009, 04:41 PM

By logical extension, this should mean a luxury consumer in First World countries should think "I should buy more, and waste more, so that people on the edge of survival have a productive means of making more money - and stuff the environment. So, the whole idea of cutting back our consumerist tendencies is complete bunkum".

How is is that necessitated by the plight of the poor? Nothing says that you HAVE to do that. The first world consumerist there would be an idiot, not orrect.

BlaqueKatt

11-29-2009, 08:37 PM

How do you reach that conclusion?

eco-terrorists targeted oil refineries because fossil fuels are bad-ok we'll buckle and make bio-fuels-now those are bad as it contributes to the destruction of the rain forest.....

and to prove my point that most eco-terrorists are "holier-than-thou" and realy don't know much about life in general-

"Generally speaking, the Earth Liberation folks are motivated by a deep kind of affective connection to nature that many of them would characterize as spiritual or religious," said Bron Taylor, a professor of religion and nature at the University of Florida. "They believe that the human species is perpetrating a war on nature and that those who are connected to nature and belong to it have a right to defend themselves."

Members who carry out attacks in the name of nature tend to be of college age and well educated,* and typically have an out-of-town recruiter who lures them into the act of crime, said Ron Arnold, the executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

*translate that to rich white suburbanites-most likely.....or as we here in a college town refer to them..."trustafarians (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trustafarian)"

see also eco-fascist
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eco-fascist)

Slytovhand

11-30-2009, 07:04 AM

eco-terrorists targeted oil refineries because fossil fuels are bad-ok we'll buckle and make bio-fuels-now those are bad as it contributes to the destruction of the rain forest.....

But that still doesn't conclude your argument. Yes, fossil fuels are bad for the environment. The next, more logical step would have been looking at other alternative energy production - such as electric engines. Bio-fuels are better, but there's no need to cut down rainforests... well, other than a profit margin to be maintained... which is what I'm arguing against (futilely).

And yes, I am quite aware of a 'holier-than-thou' attitude. It's present in any discussion where someone says "You should...". But the question still comes back to a simple one - if someone or thing is destroying something irrevocably and irreversibly and with complete ignorance of the consequences - consequences which can have a disasterous impact on a lot of others - to what extent should they be stopped from doing that act? Starting wars seems to be an ok thing to do (historically speaking)... so where's the line?

HOLY CRAP!!! I just looked up Ron Arnold and the Centre for the Defense of Free Enterprise.... Centre for the Defense of Free Enterprise (http://www.cdfe.org/about-us/mission-statement/). Check the links on the right about the conspiracy theories of the Leftists trying to destroy everything that's good and wholesome in our lives.... While I like a good link and a relevant authority on a matter, someone a tad less biased might be handy.

BlaqueKatt

12-01-2009, 05:11 AM

While I like a good link and a relevant authority on a matter, someone a tad less biased might be handy.

Anti-defamation league (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco) acceptable?

Change has been incremental. Some activists on the fringes of these causes, frustrated by the pace of legislation, have become violent, creating an underground terrorist movement to combat companies and practices they consider abusive and immoral. During the past two decades, extreme animal rights and environmental activists, or ecoterrorists, have committed hundreds of arsons, bombings and acts of vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage.

In recent years, fast-food restaurants have been firebombed and car dealerships and housing developments burned to the ground in the name of "ecology" and "animal rights." Increasingly, people that work for companies perceived as harming animals or destroying the environment are targeted as well.

In 1989, Foreman and three other members of Earth First! were arrested by the FBI on charges of conspiracy to sabotage nuclear facilities.

Yeah that'll help the planet......

in 1997 ELF claimed responsibility for the arson of a ski resort in Vail, Colorado, causing $12 million in damages - the costliest act of ecoterrorism in American history at the time. The attack included seven separate fires, which destroyed three buildings and damaged four chairlifts. In its communiqué, ELF said, "putting profits ahead of Colorado's wildlife will not be tolerated….We will be back if this greedy corporation continues to trespass into wild and unroaded [sic] areas."

yet their fires also damaged trees and animals-how much damage do skiiers do?

Rosebraugh was able to infuse the ecoterror movement with a strong anti-capitalist and anti-government bent, which had the effect of broadening its potential targets as well as recruits.

Rosebraugh became the movement's spokesperson in late 1997 and would go on to handle ELF messages taking credit for acts of sabotage resulting in millions of dollars in damages.

Rosebraugh was subpoenaed by the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health to testify at a hearing on ecoterrorism in February 2002. During his testimony, Rosebraugh invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to all but a few questions. In a written explanation, he said that "in light of the events on September 11, my country has told me that I should not cooperate with terrorists. I therefore am refusing to cooperate with members of Congress who are some of the most extreme terrorists in history."

does that tell you something about their mindset? Congress passes laws, if they want to get laws passed they have to work with congress-but they refuse calling them terrorists.

Rosebraugh said that "the only possibility of stopping this current military action is to engage in strategies and tactics which severely disrupt the war machine, the U.S. economy, and the overall functioning of U.S. society." He recommended large scale urban riots and attacking financial and media centers, as well as U.S. military establishments.

"Violence is a necessary element of an oppressive struggle…to overthrow an oppressive government…[ELF is] only part of a larger building revolutionary movement that won't stop until it has a successful overthrow of this country."

I cannot see anyone like that as a "good guy"

An anonymous e-mail claiming responsibility for the incident said that activists had used a 10-pound ammonium nitrate bomb "strapped with nails." Although the building sustained minimal damage, the e-mail warned that "we will now be doubling the size of every device we make" and that "customers and their families are considered legitimate targets."

so you could be a target if you're a customer or family member of a customer of that company-still ok with it?

In 1998, the "Animal Rights Militia" threatened to kill 10 scientists if Barry Horne, who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for waging a 1994 firebombing campaign that caused £3 million in damage to stores in England, died while on a hunger strike.

Many eco-activists affiliate themselves with a brand of anarchism that opposes modernization and its effects on the natural environment. Some call themselves primitivists, or green anarchists, and contend that humans were better off thousands of years ago, before the advent of farming. Based on an ideology devised by John Zerzan and centered in the Eugene, Oregon, area, primitivism "views technology and civilization as an unnecessary evil and believes humanity would be much happier and healthier outside the modern industrial world.

they're crazy and very dangerous-that is all.

They'd rather live in a time when average life expectancy was less than 30 years-that's more than a bit off....

Slytovhand

12-01-2009, 07:27 AM

Anti-defamation league acceptable?

Actually, no.

TBH, and flamed, some of your last post I have absolutely no problems with. And, strangely enough, it's some of the stuff you bolded to make your point - which is that "OMG - we've lost money - this is horrible!!!!"

...members of Congress who are some of the most extreme terrorists in history."

Well, yes, that's true... while not a particularly helpful stance to take, it has some accuracy.

customers and their families are considered legitimate targets."

One of the few things that I actually have an issue with in this context... no, I don't think customers and family should be considered 'legitimate targets'...

In its communiqué, ELF said, "putting profits ahead of Colorado's wildlife will not be tolerated….We will be back if this greedy corporation continues to trespass into wild and unroaded [sic] areas."

I absolutely agree! Which is exactly what this whole thread is about - profits ought not to be the guiding light to every single action... that other forms of life, which are unable to speak for themselves - need to be stood up for.. as per "if someone or thing is destroying something irrevocably and irreversibly and with complete ignorance of the consequences - consequences which can have a disasterous impact on a lot of others - to what extent should they be stopped from doing that act? Starting wars seems to be an ok thing to do (historically speaking)... so where's the line?"

Savannah

12-02-2009, 10:46 AM

Ok. Because what that means is stopping evolution. We now wish to throw a monkey wrench. No longer will we accept survival of the fittest. Nothing is allowed to change because extinction is bad so all species must be saved. It is now our decision to balance the ecosystem instead of letting nature do it.

Ah, no. That's not what I'm trying to say, but I can see where you're getting it. What I have a problem with is saying "Oh well, I guess the (insert species here) can't survive in the modern world," while simultaneously saying "OMG, that baby has severe health issues! We have to save it!" Now we're allowing evolution (by your definition) for other species, but not for humans. This leads to human overpopulation and increases health issues.

Another factor is the speed of changes we're expecting other species to cope with. Evolution took place over many generations. How many generations have there been since we started large scale deforestation of the amazon, for example? Not long enough for survival of the fittest to occur before a species is wiped out.

We have taken on the responsibility for evolution; we deny natural selection on a daily basis. Maybe we should allow nature to balence things, but it's a moot point now. We save the lives of humans who would have died without intervention and those humans have children. We breed plants and animals for characteristics we find desirable. Heck, we can put DNA from one organism into another to get the characteristics we want. We breed animals that wouldn't survive in the wild. English bulldog puppies have such large skulls that they must be delivered by caesarean sections. We've stopped evolution for them. Why should they get a free pass while plovers are told "no, we can't spare any beach for you"?

jackfaire

12-02-2009, 03:11 PM

Ah, no. That's not what I'm trying to say, but I can see where you're getting it.

Was playing more devil's advocate with my response. Something I am curious about though at what point does our developing as a species stop counting as survival of the fittest?

One of the most interesting views I have seen on Evolution is Stephen Baxter's

BlaqueKatt

12-03-2009, 01:25 AM

I absolutely agree! Which is exactly what this whole thread is about - profits ought not to be the guiding light to every single action... that other forms of life, which are unable to speak for themselves - need to be stood up for.. as per "

but was there any harm to the wildlife? I'm sure their fires caused harm, but did the buildings? They're going on their perception only, perception=/=facts Here in WI they protest the deer hunt, we have CWD (http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/about.overview), no natural predators for the deer, and they starve to death or catch and transmit CWD(mad cow that affects deer-horrible death for the animal). Managing the herd size keeps the animals healthy-they don't care.

Slytovhand

12-07-2009, 03:34 AM

I certainly ain't going to suggest that their knowledge or facts are going to be any better or any worse, than any other peoples. But, as we've already seen, humans are extremely short-sighted... and tend not to care much for other life when they can do something in the here and now.

We had similar issues with kangaroos - they get culled every so often (as do brumbies (wild horses), camels, and other animals), and a few years back, even a big scream because they were doing that on the grounds of Parliament House. Oh, then, due to the scream and outrage, they found another solution!

If you accept the 'Climate Change' has been strongly affected by humans, then it would seem fairly obvious (to me, and others) that extreme measures need to be taken - measures that are going to be ignored by those mostly in power and control - and wealthy. (eg, Australia has offered up a target of a mere 5% reduction in Greenhouse gas emissions... versus 40% - or more - has been sought).

Nyoibo

12-08-2009, 06:45 AM

We had similar issues with kangaroos - they get culled every so often (as do brumbies (wild horses), camels, and other animals), and a few years back, even a big scream because they were doing that on the grounds of Parliament House. Oh, then, due to the scream and outrage, they found another solution!

Wait, we did? What?

Slytovhand

12-08-2009, 07:00 AM

Some got moved to the bush.. 'relocated'. I've a feeling perhaps zoos as well - but maybe not. ( but IIRC, last I heard, there was still going to be culls though - perhaps another about-face! Then again, maybe I'm thinking back further as well :p)

Nyoibo

12-08-2009, 01:59 PM

Culls are occasionally necesary, if their migratory patterns aren't large enough (which with all the urban sprawl they're getting smaller) then the genetic diversity gets closed off and interbreeding gets too much then it gets bad, the other problem is that their feeding grounds are getting smaller, so there's not as much land to support them.

protege

12-08-2009, 03:11 PM

Culls are needed. How do I know this? Well, the deer population in SW PA is annoyingly large. Yet, because many rural areas are being turned over to development...the herds are being forced onto smaller and smaller tracts of land. While that is going on, nearly all of those "wooded but developed" areas are off-limits to hunting...and since (locally) deer have few predators, their population explodes :eek: and then they have to compete with limited resources.

Some survive, while others starve to death over the winter. I don't know about you...but dealing with deer carcasses is pretty nasty business. Rotting meat brings all sorts of critters into the area--possibly rabid raccoons, vultures and other scavengers. I don't know about the rest of you...but do you want rabid raccoons near your house? I sure as hell don't!

That's why you need some hunting to help control the population. Yet, because nobody wants to get shot...you're not allowed to hunt in Allegheny County (basically Pittsburgh and the 'burbs). Bow-hunting has been tried in the larger parks, but from what I've heard, has been unsuccessful. Too many protesters, and too many idiots walking around to worry about.

Also, not all "hunters" are sportsmen. Many do it for the thrill of killing something, or for a trophy...which isn't what it's about. Most guys I know do it to put food on the table (venison chili is freaking awesome), or because it requires plenty of skill for a clean kill. By "clean," I mean that one shot drops the animal. What you don't want, is for it to suffer...or have to chase it down to do it right.

...and then there are the assholes we'd sometimes come across. These fools, would sit atop one ridge, and shoot across the valley, attempting to hit targets on the other ridge. Never mind that they'd leave wounded (or dead) deer to rot, but we'd ask them to leave or call the cops. Why? Well, they didn't have permission to be on our land, and we'd tired of dealing with the mess they'd leave behind. Oh, and occasionally one of the renter's cattle (we'd rent out the pastures) would get shot!

Hyena Dandy

12-11-2009, 03:26 AM

The problem with ecoterrorism is that it places people in a vacuum. A lot of people talk about punishing a Japanese whaling CEO or something.

But he doesn't exist in a vacuum. Killing him punishes his family. His wife, his children, people whose only crime is being associated with him. The families of the people on the whaling boats, etc. etc.

People don't exist in a vacuum, and destroying an industry without offering an alternative to those involved in it assumes that everyone involved in that industry is a malicious bastard. And that's just not fair.

Fryk

12-11-2009, 03:58 PM

You could make the same argument for putting a father in prison for a crime he committed, though. After all, even though he murdered someone, the rest of the family suffers, too.

Tanasi

12-11-2009, 11:31 PM

You could make the same argument for putting a father in prison for a crime he committed, though. After all, even though he murdered someone, the rest of the family suffers, too.

The difference is the CEO of the whaling company isn't breaking any laws of his country whereas the father that committed murdered did break a law.
When someone discounts another's life also discounts their own as well as every other person.

Slytovhand

12-12-2009, 04:40 AM

Oh, well... as long as there's no law against it, it must be ok!!!

No, the 'law' isn't the sole determiner for what is 'right' or 'wrong'.

Kimmik

12-12-2009, 10:26 AM

Oh, well... as long as there's no law against it, it must be ok!!!

No, the 'law' isn't the sole determiner for what is 'right' or 'wrong'.

So is it ok to violate a law that you think is wrong? Is it ok to murder someone who you think has done something against your moral compass?

you stated that

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!

So if someone can stop a certain number of animals being killed it is worth a human life... does that mean anti-abortionist are right in killing an abortion doctor because it might save a life of a baby? Is it right if a homophobic Christian *not your normal Christian I am talking about the radicals* kills a homosexual because to them it is right because their bible says so?

What about the extremist in other countries that kill because of x reason that is right in their eyes?

See you begin a slippery slope. I am for banning sport hunting... but not hunting. I grew up eating venison and other things... I was raised if I shot it I ate it.... with the exception of self defense.. ALL Life is precious.. but killing for food is an acceptable thing.. some science requires killing.. But in all I think all extremist of ANY kind are bad.

Extremist get their way through bullying, violence and terror.. be it for the animals, the environment, or any other bloody thing... None of it is right..

I don't mean to come off like a bitch.. but I have seen what extremist can do.. and the damage lingers on after the act... :(

Fryk

12-13-2009, 01:29 AM

Here's something I just thought of- where do we stop caring about what types of animals are killed? Is it ok to kill ants or termites?
"Oh, but termites damage homes and such, that why we-"
but anything living in close proximity to humans is bound to damage someone's property. Bear can crash their way into a kitchen and wreck someone's home up- can we kill them?
I'm not really trying to make a clear point here yet, I am just wondering what everytone thinks. At what point is it ok to kill an animal?

joe hx

12-13-2009, 02:27 AM

Is it ok to kill ants or termites?

Another rationalization might be there's a shit ton of ants or termites, but only so many bears. But, according to this site (http://www.earthsendangered.com/search-groups2.asp?search=1&sgroup=I), several species of incests are endangered, including a few groups of ants... So I guess that nullifies that rationalization.

the_std

12-13-2009, 03:00 AM

several species of incests are endangered

... I just had to point this out, cause it nearly made me piss my pants from laughing.

Slytovhand

12-13-2009, 05:34 AM

So is it ok to violate a law that you think is wrong?

Well - yes, of course! Who doesn't speed when they feel like it? Who doesn't cheat on their taxes? Who is a fully, 100% law abiding citizen? If you went to another country with laws you disagreed with, will you stick to them all - such as the alcohol ban in certain Muslim countries? (no, I'm not trying to indicate that breaking such laws is ok - just pointing out that the violation of laws happens in general, so the argument you present is a little weak on it's own.

Is it ok to murder someone who you think has done something against your moral compass?

Like all things in life - it depends on the individual circumstances. But, as a general answer to your question (that being either a 'yes' or a 'no'), then obviously, the answer is 'yes', given certain stances I've already stated here and elsewhere (eg, death penalty et al).

So if someone can stop a certain number of animals being killed it is worth a human life...

Yes - again depending on specifics - one human life is not worth the extinction or mass slaughter into seriously endangered of a species of other sentient life. Let me look at this argument from another point of view. Let's say a race of aliens comes to planet Earth and decides we're not worth much to them. They start doing whatever it is they want to do, with complete disregard to us - and in doing so, kills us off. Do we think "Well, that's ok, they're obviously superior to us, so we should just let them?" Or, do you think you're worth fighting for? Is the life worth something only because it happens to be in a human body??? I suggest not!

does that mean anti-abortionist are right in killing an abortion doctor because it might save a life of a baby? Is it right if a homophobic Christian *not your normal Christian I am talking about the radicals* kills a homosexual because to them it is right because their bible says so?

While the general argument seems to be similar, it is in fact very very different, to the point of being irrelevant. You're trying here to attach significance only on the moral aspect of my argument, rather than the reason for it. And also make it a lot more black and white in moralistic terms... I've never indicated that!

What about the extremist in other countries that kill because of x reason that is right in their eyes?

Are you doing anything to actively stop them? Please recall, George Bush (snr and jnr) both used this as an excuse to invade Iraq. Hitler used it to invade Czechoslovakia. Britain used it to help defend Europe, and the USA used it to join in WWI.

See you begin a slippery slope.

Yes, it can be... while it's still seen in purely black and white terms. And, in one way, it is - it's pretty black and white that taking a species to near or total extinction is a bad thing to do, and ought to be stopped. If good, civilised, peaceful and 'humane' ways don't work, then I advocate the use of more 'extreme' measures. It's not the best option - but if it's the only option remaining to prevent such extinctions and destructions, then so be it!

Extremist get their way through bullying, violence and terror.. be it for the animals, the environment, or any other bloody thing... None of it is right.. And the profits, and the home comforts and conveniences we take for granted???

I don't mean to come off like a bitch.. but I have seen what extremist can do.. and the damage lingers on after the act... :(

I totally agree! And that's why I started this thread - there are corporations that willingly, and unashamedly, damage the world around them. This species of humans will not readily survive this sort of damage they are inflicting. Hey, just look at how people are bitching now because they don't want to change to make things better around them (ie, alternative energies, reduced water usage, higher taxes to off-set carbon emmissions etc - if we wised up decades ago, when we were first told about what we're doing, this wouldn't be the problem it is now).

Tanasi

12-14-2009, 02:03 AM

So Slytovhand when does your flight to Japan leave?

Nyoibo

12-14-2009, 03:06 AM

And the profits, and the home comforts and conveniences we take for granted???

Unless you're living a totally impact free non-consumerist life then you are supporting the problem, does this mean it's ok to kill you becuase you are the cause of the problem?

The CEO is not to blame, the consumers who create the demand are, kill all of them the demand disappears.

jackfaire

12-15-2009, 01:51 AM

I don't cross unless the light says I can or lacking a light I use my best judgement.

Kimmik

12-16-2009, 11:54 AM

I am sorry but I see eco-terrorists the same as rabid anti-abortionists. Neither is right, I am sorry. You can not justify killing someone because you think they are wrong. And by the by I am also against the death penalty, no I don't speed intentionally and when I find myself going to fast I will slow down.. much to the irritation of those behind me, don't fudge my taxes, return money when I get to much back, etc. I try to follow all the laws, even if I think some of them are down right stupid. I will admit that yes I have broken laws in the past and I am ashamed to admit that.

But what good are laws if we can arbitrarily ignore them because they are inconvenient? Just because you do not agree with the laws is no reason to violate them intentionally.

If I was in a Muslim country, yes I would cover my head and no I would not drink and if I was not allowed to drive then I wouldn't. When in Rome do as the romans do. It is not my place to question their laws or culture.

I have seen what happens to loggers when eco-nuts damage equipment, good people can't pay their bills. I have seen what happens when mills close down, houses burn down and more.

I am sorry people that damage other people's property or injure or kill because they don't agree with them or what they do are wrong.

While the general argument seems to be similar, it is in fact very very different, to the point of being irrelevant. You're trying here to attach significance only on the moral aspect of my argument, rather than the reason for it. And also make it a lot more black and white in moralistic terms... I've never indicated that!

Eco-terrorists and Anti-abortionist are the same. They justify what they do and the harm they cause because someone needs to speak for those that can't. So what if an abortion doctor dies.. it was for the babies that don't have a voice... so what if the eco-terrorists kill a ceo it is to save the animals that have no voice. Their reasons are they are in the right because of what they believe in not just because of moral reasoning.

I have a question.. do you eat meat? If so you are responsible in a way for the death of wolves, coyotes and other predators. Do you live in a house that is 100% wood free? If not you support loggers. There is nothing that we do in our daily lives that does not impact the world around us. Would it be grand if we could live in 100% harmony with the world.. yes but that isn't going to happen.

Everything has a season... animals, people, plants, all of it. Species come and go and I am a firm believer that one day humans wont be here. If I had my way I would live on a mountain living off what I could grow and hunt. I much prefer that then living in the city and I am not very much a people person.. I much prefer animals to people, but that doesn't mean that I would chose an animals life over a humans.

BlaqueKatt

12-19-2009, 11:52 PM

just thought I'd add this little fact here-even though the fact will totally destroy the "kill a Japanese CEO to save the endangered whales" argument.

The Japanese and Norwegians mainly hunt Minke Whales (http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/wildlife/whales/minke.shtml)-which ARE NOT endangered-worldwide population is over 500,000 a couple hundred are taken combined every year. Even if the number is doubled to 400 per year taken-it would take over 1000 years to render them extinct from hunting......provided breeding only replaces those that die from natural causes....

protege

12-20-2009, 12:04 AM

The Japanese and Norwegians mainly hunt Minke Whales (http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/wildlife/whales/minke.shtml)-which ARE NOT endangered-worldwide population is over 500,000 a couple hundred are taken combined every year. Even if the number is doubled to 400 per year taken-it would take over 1000 years to render them extinct from hunting......provided breeding only replaces those that die from natural causes....

You'd never hear that though. Just another example of how the environmental nuts will twist information to suit their own agendas :rolleyes:

BlaqueKatt

12-20-2009, 03:01 AM

You'd never hear that though. Just another example of how the environmental nuts will twist information to suit their own agendas :rolleyes:

And notice how everyone focuses on the Japanese and totally leaves the Norwegians out of any kind of protests-even sea shepard only harasses the Japanese fleet(which was purchased from Aristotle Onassis-who maintained it privately before selling it). When the Norwegians sell their catch to the Japanese....So I guess whaling is bad to feed your populace but ok if you do it for money?

and I was wrong on the population American Cetacean Society
(protecting whales, dolphins, porpoises, & their habitats through education, conservation, & research since 1967)-puts their numbers at around a million animals-also they live about 20-40 years and reach breeding age at around 5-7 years, so pretty good odds for them....relatively speaking...especially since the pre-whaling numbers for their population was around 200,000 due to not being able to compete for food due to being smaller that the other baleen whales...

Slytovhand

12-21-2009, 04:56 AM

A) I notice the use of the word 'mainly' in the post. While Minkes do make up over 50% of whales killed, it's not even close to 100%. Also, where do you get your numbers from? I'm seeing figures of According to Joji Morishita of Japanese Fisheries Agency, <snip> Norway issue around 1000 quota per year as opposed to Japan's 1,330.

B) No, the Norwegians cop a stack of crap about it as well... I just used 'Japanese' as it is more in the news of late.

C) "So I guess whaling is bad to feed your populace but ok if you do it for money?" Say what?? Since when is Japanese (in particular) whaling about 'feeding the populace'?? Sure, it's a Japanese delicacy, and most Japanese don't want it, so how is that even close to being accurate? Now, if you wanted to argue against the indigenous Eskimo populations, you'd have a better argument.

D) The Norwegians are doing something they've sort of done for thousands of years (granted, to a lesser extent) and in their 'local' area. The Japanese whaling vessels are travelling thousands of miles to do their hunting... for rather suspicious purposes (given the different 'reasons' being used).

In 1976, the quota for Southern Hemisphere Bryde's whales was set to zero by the IWC. However, Japan proceded to take 225 of them during the 76-77 season by issuing itself a permit to take whales for scientific research under Article VIII of the ICRW. Following this event, the IWC recommended all future applications of Article VIII be reviewed by the IWC scientific committee.[44]

In 1986, Japan introduced a similar proposal and later issued itself a scientific permit to take 825 minke whales and 50 sperm whales every year for ten years. Despite the fact that the IWC scientific committee rejected its research proposals Japan continued whaling.

The IWC adopted a resolution in 1987 recommending Japan not proceed until disagreements over its research proposals were resolved. A second resolution was also adopted on February 14, 1988 recommending Japan not proceed. On February 9, 1988 Japanese whalers killed the first minke whale in Antarctic waters under the new self issued research whaling permit.

So, it's ok for a nation to just ignore the international community, and it's ok?? (and again, you'll note the difference to your numbers).

My argument still stands. In this particular one - humans number over 6 Billion... the whales you mentioned - woot! Maybe up to a whole 1 million! Cool... no need to panic!

[ETA: what could be dubious 'information' from Greenpeace - take it for what it's worth...]Facts and figures

Recent DNA evidence shows that the impact of commercial whaling may be even worse than previously thought.

Most estimates of historic whale population size have been extrapolated from old whaling figures, but this method is often very inaccurate, according to marine biologist Steve Palumbi of Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station in California, USA.

In 2003 Palumbi and his colleagues used DNA samples to estimate that humpback whales could have numbered 1.5 million prior to the onset of commercial whaling in the 1800s.

That number dwarfs the figure of 100,000 previously accepted by the IWC based on 19th century whaling records. Humpback whales currently number only 20,000.

Japanese delegates to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) constantly refer to a 1990 estimate of the Antarctic minke population of 760,000. But that figure was withdrawn by the IWC in 2000 because recent surveys found far fewer minkes than the older ones.

The new estimates are half the old in every area that has been resurveyed. The IWC’s scientists do not understand the reasons for this and so far have not been able to agree a new estimate.

jackfaire

12-21-2009, 08:52 PM

In this particular one - humans number over 6 Billion... the whales you mentioned - woot! Maybe up to a whole 1 million! Cool... no need to panic!

Although numbers alone can't be used as a comparison of which species is doing better because you need to take into account environment, species size, breeding habits, etc.

BlaqueKatt

12-21-2009, 09:54 PM

A) I notice the use of the word 'mainly' in the post. While Minkes do make up over 50% of whales killed, it's not even close to 100%. Also, where do you get your numbers from?
ABC News Austrailia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/15/2217093.htm)

Japan has confirmed it has had trouble meeting the quota it set itself - with 551 minke whales making up roughly 60 per cent of the quota.

and that's all they took, not the 1000 quota, heck their "quota" could've been 10,000 they only took 551.

So, it's ok for a nation to just ignore the international community, and it's ok?? (and again, you'll note the difference to your numbers).

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4417462.stm)
In June, the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) passed a resolution condemning JARPA-2; but it has no power, as any member nation is empowered to run "scientific" programmes. Or simply leave and not be bound by anything they say-which they can't enforce anyway.

and as I already said Quota=/=actual amount taken-you're using the quota numbers-I'm using the actual catch which is much lower than the quota.

actual numbers taken since 1986 (http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/table_permit.htm) from the IWC

12,309 all species, all countries whaling for scientific research

April to august of 2007 208 minke whales taken by Japan-which is what I believe I said-dec to april 08 they took 551. Both years they had a "quota of 1000"

My argument still stands. In this particular one - humans number over 6 Billion... the whales you mentioned - woot! Maybe up to a whole 1 million! Cool... no need to panic!

that's up from 200,000 in the 1980's not down-their numbers are INCREASING, so no panic is warranted if the population is INCREASING.