Oder River in Poland Poisoned

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

They are the most dangerous animal on the planet and a toxin to the Earth. How about that?

So now you're going on the whole Neo-Luddite arc now it appears. Have fun with that, meanwhile us actual environmentalists will be trying to solve the problem without population control.

Greenwashing Is horrible. Our population IS unsustainable! We need less people!

[Ethel mermania]

Bronx zoo did it long before luman was born

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mos ... %20Chicago.

I always knew there was something off about the Bronx.

The Italian food is really good.

The sad part is I recalled that from seeing it.

[San Lumen]

"They", what, are you not human any more? And humans can't be a toxin, we're not a chemical. And how would you even measure "most dangerous animal"? What does that mean?

How about you stop talking shit about our whole species? Stop trying to write off thinking, feeling people as mere things, as a disease or a toxin.

Bronx zoo did it long before luman was born

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mos ... %20Chicago.

A perfectly reasonable exhibit.

[Bear Stearns]

The Oder River belongs to Germany.

[Fauzjhia]

So now you're going on the whole Neo-Luddite arc now it appears. Have fun with that, meanwhile us actual environmentalists will be trying to solve the problem without population control.

Greenwashing Is horrible. Our population IS unsustainable! We need less people!

So, who do we kill to have less peoples and sustain our planet ?
undeveloped countries ? The poor ? the nonreligious..

this logic, you claim, that we have over-population problem mainly claim that if we were fewer, life would be better.
Yet this is false, and has only ever served to oppress the poor, who are not often the worst contributor of climate, Wealth, and uneducation are the greatest contributors to climate changes and your so called (solutions) will only result in a twisted logic that oppress the poors.

we do not have an over-population problem, its over-consumption and bad educations.



this whole situation (poisoned river) could have been prevented with proper management of Toxic wastes.

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Greenwashing Is horrible. Our population IS unsustainable! We need less people!

So, who do we kill to have less peoples and sustain our planet? undeveloped countries? The poor? the nonreligious...

this logic, you claim, that we have over-population problem mainly claim that if we were fewer, life would be better. Yet this is false, and has only ever served to oppress the poor, who are not often the worst contributor of climate, Wealth, and uneducation are the greatest contributors to climate changes and your so called (solutions) will only result in a twisted logic that oppress the poors.

we do not have an over-population problem, its over-consumption and bad educations.

I never made those claims... if anything... it’s us (Global North) that I was referring to.

this whole situation (poisoned river) could have been prevented with proper management of Toxic wastes.

Agreed... but this Poland! Which as of present is under a conservative government... therefore this idea that the government is going to give shit is laughable!

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Eco-terrorists wouldn't poison a river, unless if it could further an environmental aim which it wouldn't. Eco-terrorists would be more inclined to destroy/blow up something like an oil pipeline or refinery, because violence against such a place would directly put a stop to some carbon emissions or otherwise keep more oil products in the ground and keep it from being burned and hence contribute to climate change.

Then why do they start forest fires and kill animals?

For certain white nationalists: the fires are caused by jewish space lasers.

[Kerwa]

I always knew there was something off about the Bronx.

The Italian food is really good.

The sad part is I recalled that from seeing it.

The Bronx is the best part of NYC. All other boroughs are weak and puny by comparison,

And yeah, Arthur Ave. is tops.

[Fauzjhia]

So, who do we kill to have less peoples and sustain our planet? undeveloped countries? The poor? the nonreligious...

this logic, you claim, that we have over-population problem mainly claim that if we were fewer, life would be better. Yet this is false, and has only ever served to oppress the poor, who are not often the worst contributor of climate, Wealth, and uneducation are the greatest contributors to climate changes and your so called (solutions) will only result in a twisted logic that oppress the poors.

we do not have an over-population problem, its over-consumption and bad educations.

I never made those claims... if anything... it’s us (Global North) that I was referring to.

this whole situation (poisoned river) could have been prevented with proper management of Toxic wastes.

Agreed... but this Poland! Which as of present is under a conservative government... therefore this idea that the government is going to give shit is laughable!

our countries are the worst offender on that level.
we are far less numerous then multiple others country, we have resources and we have government who are globally less corrupt then others countries, we could easily take more refugee. Yet we refuse to do hare them, to welcome refuges and we waste our resources like crazy. Us being less will only lead to less peoples consuming even more resources, and that's the greater problem, rather over-population. Conservative governments simply feed on our non-education.

Edit :
its not that humans are an infection, its that human choose to be that infection.
like I said, such disaster could be prevented by ecological education.

[Utquiagvik]

Jesus Christ. I hope that everyone is getting away from the river.

[Risottia]

So, who do we kill to have less peoples and sustain our planet ?

You don't need to kill people. Just just need people to stop reproducing like rabbits. Once all countries drop below the 2.0 child per fertile woman, we'll be on the good road.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Greenwashing Is horrible. Our population IS unsustainable! We need less people!

So, who do we kill to have less peoples and sustain our planet ?
undeveloped countries ? The poor ? the nonreligious..

this logic, you claim, that we have over-population problem mainly claim that if we were fewer, life would be better.
Yet this is false, and has only ever served to oppress the poor, who are not often the worst contributor of climate, Wealth, and uneducation are the greatest contributors to climate changes and your so called (solutions) will only result in a twisted logic that oppress the poors.

we do not have an over-population problem, its over-consumption and bad educations.



this whole situation (poisoned river) could have been prevented with proper management of Toxic wastes.

There’s hardly any real functional difference between overpopulation and overconsumption tbh. To reduce overconsumption you’d need to kneecap high standards of living and industry and such things and that inevitably would cause deaths as well. Unless we start mining asteroids and other stellar bodies our current level of civilization is just not sustainable.

[The North Polish Union]

The concerning this about this is that there is disagreement about what the contaminant is. German laboratories initially claimed Hg as the source but Polish labs could not verify this and the German lab has since withdrawn this claim. Some local environmental labs in both Poland and Germany claim that high ionic strength indicates a massive increase in salt amounts. Others say it is 1,3,5-trimetylbenzene, which is used as a solvent in industry.

This is very frustrating. When the communist entity collapsed, Poland was one of the most polluted countries in Europe (with only Bielarus a likely challenger) but successive governments including the PiS ones have followed a program of cleaning this up, although some measures such as air quality have remained worse than most of the EU. Now the government is attempting to dodge as much of the issue as they can, when the cause and identity of the polluter still remain unknown; there was a non-credible tabloid report some days ago that suggested this is because the Ministry of Environment had secretly approved a paper company to dump waste, but no evidence has been found and the suspected compounds are not widely used in paper production.

[Ethel mermania]

Do they even know where it was dumped? Approximately where in the river the contaminants were entered?

[Fauzjhia]

So, who do we kill to have less peoples and sustain our planet ?
undeveloped countries ? The poor ? the nonreligious..

this logic, you claim, that we have over-population problem mainly claim that if we were fewer, life would be better.
Yet this is false, and has only ever served to oppress the poor, who are not often the worst contributor of climate, Wealth, and uneducation are the greatest contributors to climate changes and your so called (solutions) will only result in a twisted logic that oppress the poors.

we do not have an over-population problem, its over-consumption and bad educations.



this whole situation (poisoned river) could have been prevented with proper management of Toxic wastes.

There’s hardly any real functional difference between overpopulation and overconsumption tbh. To reduce overconsumption you’d need to kneecap high standards of living and industry and such things and that inevitably would cause deaths as well. Unless we start mining asteroids and other stellar bodies our current level of civilization is just not sustainable.

yes there is a big difference between the two concepts.
Overpopulation means there are too much people, when we talk about any species other then human, the only solution becomes to eliminate some individuals
Over-consumption means that people are consuming too many resources for no reason, that if we could actually reduce our consumption, we could have enough resource for everyone with a single planet.
And also. one must take in account possible technological revolution.

So, who do we kill to have less peoples and sustain our planet ?

You don't need to kill people. Just just need people to stop reproducing like rabbits. Once all countries drop below the 2.0 child per fertile woman, we'll be on the good road.

that's classic excuse all NEO-Malthusian gives to justify their ideology. that way, you can talk about population control without looking too bad.
but, we don't need population control, of any other form of oppressive governments, we need ecological education.
EDIT : I'll remain you that any attempt of reducing China's Birth rate by their government never really worked... The population continued to grow.

we should not reduce peoples to (Mindless consumers.) People only need to educated about climate and environmental problem and become conscious about the impact of their habits on their environment, and wildlife.

[The North Polish Union]

Do they even know where it was dumped? Approximately where in the river the contaminants were entered?

So far the furthest up the river mass fish deaths have been reported is Oława, southwest of Wrocław. This would be in the major industrial region of Śląsk.

[Risottia]

that's classic excuse all NEO-Malthusian gives to justify their ideology. that way, you can talk about population control without looking too bad.

And why population control should "look bad"?
Anyway, quit reproducing like rabbits. Lots of countries are already doing that.

People only need to be educated about climate and environmental problem and become conscious about the impact of their habits on their environment, and wildlife.

No, that's entirely not enough.
People in countries with high birth rates usually can't get an education because their countries don't provide education of any kind.
People in countries who get an education continue to give fuck all about the environment and the climate. I mean, look at Europe (which is anyway the region doing the most to limit global warming): Germany is opening its COAL-FIRED power stations again, because nuclear is bad. Italy is having a massive drought and no-one is even thinking of building solar-powered desalination plants.

[Fauzjhia]

that's classic excuse all NEO-Malthusian gives to justify their ideology. that way, you can talk about population control without looking too bad.

And why population control should "look bad"?
Anyway, quit reproducing like rabbits. Lots of countries are already doing that.

People only need to be educated about climate and environmental problem and become conscious about the impact of their habits on their environment, and wildlife.

No, that's entirely not enough.
People in countries with high birth rates usually can't get an education because their countries don't provide education of any kind.
People in countries who get an education continue to give fuck all about the environment and the climate. I mean, look at Europe (which is anyway the region doing the most to limit global warming): Germany is opening its COAL-FIRED power stations again, because nuclear is bad. Italy is having a massive drought and no-one is even thinking of building solar-powered desalination plants.

1 the only thing neo-malthusian has ever gave us, is oppression on the poor
2 Aint your place to tell people to not have children. that's a personal choice.
3 those countries need a functioning government, they often do not have any, or their government are corrupt.
4 this can easily be explained by capitalism and religion, which see the environment and resources are nothing then tool that are supposed to serve the goals of mankind. If we can start by changing those outdated conceptions, we'll advance.

[The North Polish Union]

-snip-

4 this can easily be explained by capitalism and religion, which see the environment and resources are nothing then tool that are supposed to serve the goals of mankind. If we can start by changing those outdated conceptions, we'll advance.

I have always wondered how left-wingers justify such statements when the communist and state-atheist USSR was responsible for massive environmentally-damaging resource extraction projects in Siberia and Central Asia, their puppets/colonies in Europe suffered severe environmental consequences from having zero relevant regulations on their massively-increased manufacturing sectors (but at least it was proletarian manufacturing), and the current largest emitter of CO₂ is the communist and irreligious People's Republic of China

[Ifreann]

that's classic excuse all NEO-Malthusian gives to justify their ideology. that way, you can talk about population control without looking too bad.

And why population control should "look bad"?

Yeah, what could possibly look bad about people having their reproductive choices made for them?

[Fauzjhia]

-snip-

4 this can easily be explained by capitalism and religion, which see the environment and resources are nothing then tool that are supposed to serve the goals of mankind. If we can start by changing those outdated conceptions, we'll advance.

I have always wondered how left-wingers justify such statements when the communist and state-atheist USSR was responsible for massive environmentally-damaging resource extraction projects in Siberia and Central Asia, their puppets/colonies in Europe suffered severe environmental consequences from having zero relevant regulations on their massively-increased manufacturing sectors (but at least it was proletarian manufacturing), and the current largest emitter of CO₂ is the communist and irreligious People's Republic of China

1 environmentalism is a relatively new value
2 communist and URSS is totally off-topic here
3 Many of China's emission are from activities that where de-localized from our countries. because of their absence of law and their lower salaries.
4 OFF-topic, but you can't really call an authoritarian state who control all resources (Communists). An authoritarian state is not the workers.

[Ethel mermania]

that's classic excuse all NEO-Malthusian gives to justify their ideology. that way, you can talk about population control without looking too bad.

And why population control should "look bad"?
Anyway, quit reproducing like rabbits. Lots of countries are already doing that.

People only need to be educated about climate and environmental problem and become conscious about the impact of their habits on their environment, and wildlife.

No, that's entirely not enough.
People in countries with high birth rates usually can't get an education because their countries don't provide education of any kind.
People in countries who get an education continue to give fuck all about the environment and the climate. I mean, look at Europe (which is anyway the region doing the most to limit global warming): Germany is opening its COAL-FIRED power stations again, because nuclear is bad. Italy is having a massive drought and no-one is even thinking of building solar-powered desalination plants.

Fwiw, the #1 correlation to low birth rates is edumacated women.


https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/fema ... -look-data

[The North Polish Union]

I have always wondered how left-wingers justify such statements when the communist and state-atheist USSR was responsible for massive environmentally-damaging resource extraction projects in Siberia and Central Asia, their puppets/colonies in Europe suffered severe environmental consequences from having zero relevant regulations on their massively-increased manufacturing sectors (but at least it was proletarian manufacturing), and the current largest emitter of CO₂ is the communist and irreligious People's Republic of China

1 environmentalism is a relatively new value
2 communist and URSS is totally off-topic here
3 Many of China's emission are from activities that where de-localized from our countries. because of their absence of law and their lower salaries.
4 OFF-topic, but you can't really call an authoritarian state who control all resources (Communists). An authoritarian state is not the workers.

1.) Is that really the case? English Wikipedia gives all sorts of examples of legislation and movements from the late 1800s. If anything it would only post-date Marx by a few decades at most.

2.) How is it off-topic? You suggest that capitalism and religion "see the environment and resources are nothing then tool that are supposed to serve the goals of mankind". Soviet Union and PRC reject both capitalism and religion, yet were/are huge polluters.

3.) This is almost a good point. Certainly much industry has been sent to China. Perhaps if China had regulations and higher pay it would be another country. But why is it that China in particular lacks such things? It cannot be either capitalism or religion since they repudiate both, so what is it?

4.) "Whether Chinese are real communists" is not a discussion I am interested in having, as are all such discussions motivated by left-wing purity-testing. The fact of the mater is that the Soviets and Chinese are/were neither capitalists nor clergy, and yet they continue to cause great destruction to the planet.

--

You have yet to provide any reasoning that capitalism (I'll admit I also care very little about arguing this, it's not necessarily an inaccurate claim) and particularly religion (the claim I would find much more interesting to discuss) are responsible for lack of care for the environment. The realty is that many movements who described and continue to describe themselves as various varieites of socialism and communism wrecked and are wrecking their environments. I have yet to see any major religion support dumping waste from nickel mining in farm fields, much less doing it.

[Fauzjhia]

1.) Is that really the case? English Wikipedia gives all sorts of examples of legislation and movements from the late 1800s. If anything it would only post-date Marx by a few decades at most.

2.) How is it off-topic? You suggest that capitalism and religion "see the environment and resources are nothing then tool that are supposed to serve the goals of mankind". Soviet Union and PRC reject both capitalism and religion, yet were/are huge polluters.

3.) This is almost a good point. Certainly much industry has been sent to China. Perhaps if China had regulations and higher pay it would be another country. But why is it that China in particular lacks such things? It cannot be either capitalism or religion since they repudiate both, so what is it?

4.) "Whether Chinese are real communists" is not a discussion I am interested in having, as are all such discussions motivated by left-wing purity-testing. The fact of the mater is that the Soviets and Chinese are/were neither capitalists nor clergy, and yet they continue to cause great destruction to the planet.

--

You have yet to provide any reasoning that capitalism (I'll admit I also care very little about arguing this, it's not necessarily an inaccurate claim) and particularly religion (the claim I would find much more interesting to discuss) are responsible for lack of care for the environment. The realty is that many movements who described and continue to describe themselves as various varieites of socialism and communism wrecked and are wrecking their environments. I have yet to see any major religion support dumping waste from nickel mining in farm fields, much less doing it.

1 I mean, in the history of humanity, environmentalist is kinda new, compared to other ideology and never really have close to power.

2 religion has taught us that mankind is the center of our planet, and has the right to do what ever it want with the planet resources and other species. This is called Anthropocentrism, its opposite would teaching that mankind is just 1 part of life (hence is not allowed to do what ever it want with other species, aka Biocentrism). Anthropocentrism is still dominant in our world, even today. (heck, before Machiavelli, religion did not care about Tyrannic regime, because it teached that it was useless to govern the earth..)

3 China is a very hypocrite government, it support (communism), only for the party, meanwhile the rest of population is ignored. Its constitution is Platonist, it literally say, the population being too idiot, the communist party shall lead them for their own good. The Left hardly support such a government
no mentioning that Plato ideology of having those with knowledge lead the population was meant for Philosophers, people who search for the truth(scientists), and not people who pretend to know to truth (religion and etc.)

4 heum no. Because you speak to us (leftists) about model of governments we do not envision, nether support. Maybe its because you still believe in capitalism. I really don't, businesses has proven themselves to be not more intelligent then a child or a kid, if they are not punished by a government, they won't really make any effort to protect the environment or to reduce their footprint.
I've always been saying that we need a government that does its job, and in our capitalism system, our government are not often doing their job of regulating businesses/human activities, seem they prefer hurting those who can be hurt.

[HISPIDA]

it was me, sorry