A Question for Anarchist

[Bendira]

You don't realize all the money that is going to be made with the whole green energy revolution? With venture capitalists like T-Boone Pickens (who are also oil tycoons lawlz) leading the way? Please tell me that T-Boone Pickens gives a fuck about the environment?

There is a difference between "green energy" and corporate "Green washing" what you are complaining about is "green washing" and dumb stuff like energy credits. That's bad.

so called "Green" energy is good... in general.

I think protecting the environment is noble and everything, but eventually the Sun is going to engulf the Earth and we are all going to die, along with all the animals. The environment itself should not be that large of a concern. Animal cruelty is legitimate, because that is actual pain being inflicted directly on other creatures. But the notion that we are the "stewards of the planet" and responsible for keeping the planet pristine is a tad absurd when you understand that nature itself is the biggest destroyer of the planet. I mean, all it will take is one volcanic eruption to kill off the environment.

[Mercator Terra]

There is a difference between "green energy" and corporate "Green washing" what you are complaining about is "green washing" and dumb stuff like energy credits. That's bad.

so called "Green" energy is good... in general.

I think protecting the environment is noble and everything, but eventually the Sun is going to engulf the Earth and we are all going to die, along with all the animals. The environment itself should not be that large of a concern. Animal cruelty is legitimate, because that is actual pain being inflicted directly on other creatures. But the notion that we are the "stewards of the planet" and responsible for keeping the planet pristine is a tad absurd when you understand that nature itself is the biggest destroyer of the planet. I mean, all it will take is one volcanic eruption to kill off the environment.

That planet can be kept "environmentally friendly" by using the free market... Well if thats what the people want that is...

[Conserative Morality]

That planet can be kept "environmentally friendly" by using the free market... Well if thats what the people want that is...

One think history has taught us is that the people are often willing to screw themselves over for the littlest of things.

[Sibirsky]

The left wing alternative of subsistence farming was better. Obviously.

Left wing economists nearly universally support free trade and claim that sweatshops, as shitty as they are, are a vital first step to a more prosperous future.

So,Marx or Robin Hahnell support sweatshops?
Also,why does farming have to be subsistence?
Subsistence farming = low technology problem->low production->low wage.
Sweatshops = low wages.
Same results for the poor.
Taking tech-low or high-for granted,more equal pay means better life for the poor.
And we don't need corps to have better tech.
A collective factory or service can work as good or better than a vertical-power-structure one(see Argentine autogestion,Spain in the Civil War).

Marx wasn't an economist. He was a buffoon that lived more than a century ago.

Paul Krugman supports sweatshops. They don't have the capital required for high tech farming. Sweatshops pay much better than farming.

[Rokartian States]

There is a difference between "green energy" and corporate "Green washing" what you are complaining about is "green washing" and dumb stuff like energy credits. That's bad.

so called "Green" energy is good... in general.

I think protecting the environment is noble and everything, but eventually the Sun is going to engulf the Earth and we are all going to die, along with all the animals. The environment itself should not be that large of a concern.

The Sun will expand in fifty billion years. Global warming could hit in a matter of centuries, or perhaps decades.

Animal cruelty is legitimate, because that is actual pain being inflicted directly on other creatures. But the notion that we are the "stewards of the planet" and responsible for keeping the planet pristine is a tad absurd when you understand that nature itself is the biggest destroyer of the planet.

That doesn't mean that we should destroy it first.

I mean, all it will take is one volcanic eruption to kill off the environment.

It'd take a lot more than that.

[Sibirsky]

Please tell me that T-Boone Pickens gives a fuck about the environment?

T-Boone is more worried about the prospect of peak oil. Regardless, I don't know why you are attaching a movement, which precedes him by many decades, to this person.

He wants a taxpayer subsidy for natural gas. Fuck him. He has the money to invest in it.

[Sibirsky]

Subsidies for green products.

Riiight...

Electric and hybrid cars. Light bulbs. Windows. Subsidies for the rich.

Poor people do not buy new cars. The middle class and the rich used the program. But older cars were destroyed as part of the program. Which means less used cars on the market. Which means higher prices for used cars. Hurting the poor.

Interesting. But public transportation is cheaper, (add in the cost of the clunker, maintaining it, and gas) is it not?

Your point? Public transportation is not available everywhere.

[Natapoc]

There is a difference between "green energy" and corporate "Green washing" what you are complaining about is "green washing" and dumb stuff like energy credits. That's bad.

so called "Green" energy is good... in general.

I think protecting the environment is noble and everything, but eventually the Sun is going to engulf the Earth and we are all going to die, along with all the animals. The environment itself should not be that large of a concern. Animal cruelty is legitimate, because that is actual pain being inflicted directly on other creatures. But the notion that we are the "stewards of the planet" and responsible for keeping the planet pristine is a tad absurd when you understand that nature itself is the biggest destroyer of the planet. I mean, all it will take is one volcanic eruption to kill off the environment.

When people say "protect the environment" they normally REALLY mean: Protect human habitat from being contaminated to the point that humans die more, suffer more diseases, ect.

Most of them don't actually care about the environment (I do, but most don't seem to) they care about the people who depend on the environment for their very lives.

[Sibirsky]

That planet can be kept "environmentally friendly" by using the free market... Well if thats what the people want that is...

One think history has taught us is that the people are often willing to screw themselves over for the littlest of things.

Capitalists are much better at protecting the environment than governments.

[Wamitoria]

One think history has taught us is that the people are often willing to screw themselves over for the littlest of things.

Capitalists are much better at protecting the environment than governments.

How many times have capitalists actually been put in charge of the environment?

[Conserative Morality]

Capitalists are much better at protecting the environment than governments.

As I take a quick glance at the 19th Century, I am forced to give you a disbelieving look and recoil slightly.

[Natapoc]

Capitalists are much better at protecting the environment than governments.

How many times have capitalists actually been put in charge of the environment?

They are both bad at it. That's one of the reasons why we should have neither capitalists nor the state.

[Mercator Terra]

So,Marx or Robin Hahnell support sweatshops?
Also,why does farming have to be subsistence?
Subsistence farming = low technology problem->low production->low wage.
Sweatshops = low wages.
Same results for the poor.
Taking tech-low or high-for granted,more equal pay means better life for the poor.
And we don't need corps to have better tech.
A collective factory or service can work as good or better than a vertical-power-structure one(see Argentine autogestion,Spain in the Civil War).

Marx wasn't an economist. He was a buffoon that lived more than a century ago.

Paul Krugman supports sweatshops. They don't have the capital required for high tech farming. Sweatshops pay much better than farming.

Marx wrote a half ass ideology that focused on only one part of economics. He forgot the big picture (raising the standard of living for as much as possible and for as many people as possible).

[Sibirsky]

Capitalists are much better at protecting the environment than governments.

How many times have capitalists actually been put in charge of the environment?

When they own it, or at least run it, they will protect it.

[Wamitoria]

How many times have capitalists actually been put in charge of the environment?

When they own it, or at least run it, they will protect it.

Great, but that still doesn't answer my question.

[Sibirsky]

When they own it, or at least run it, they will protect it.

Great, but that still doesn't answer my question.

A limited number if times. On a very small scale. They've been relatively successful.

[Wamitoria]

Great, but that still doesn't answer my question.

A limited number if times. On a very small scale. They've been relatively successful.

Could you give me some examples?

[Sibirsky]

Capitalists are much better at protecting the environment than governments.

As I take a quick glance at the 19th Century, I am forced to give you a disbelieving look and recoil slightly.

We're in the 21st century now. And in the 20th, governments have caused far more environmental damage.

[Ragnarsdomr]

They are both bad at it. That's one of the reasons why we should have neither capitalists nor the state.

And we know what both of those groups consist of: humans. Dirty, filthy humans.

We should let the crows and octopi hold an interspecial referendum to decide what happens. They'd be able to solve it, obviously.

[Bendira]

Marx wasn't an economist. He was a buffoon that lived more than a century ago.

Paul Krugman supports sweatshops. They don't have the capital required for high tech farming. Sweatshops pay much better than farming.

Marx wrote a half ass ideology that focused on only one part of economics. He forgot the big picture (raising the standard of living for as much as possible and for as many people as possible).

Here is a good excerpt on that point (cant get URL to work wtf?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxqHMtOhMYA

[Mercator Terra]

How many times have capitalists actually been put in charge of the environment?

When they own it, or at least run it, they will protect it.

Walter Block for example wrote a wonderful article on protecting whales.
Basically he said that as long as there is a market for whale meat in Asia whales would never go extinct.
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/waterprivate.pdf
Heres the article

[Natapoc]

Speaking of environmentalism, the state, corporations, and the joy of militant uprising against the oppressive oligarchy... Has anyone here seen "the coconut revolution"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 630784238#

[Conserative Morality]

We're in the 21st century now.

So we are. Glad we're not in the 19th anymore.

And in the 20th, governments have caused far more environmental damage.

Of course, with all of their environmental regulation and the sort. How harmful.

[Sibirsky]

A limited number if times. On a very small scale. They've been relatively successful.

Could you give me some examples?

Central Park in New York City. Some other park in Boston. They aren't privately owned, but privately managed. Forests, that are privately owned. It's in the interest of the capitalist owner to cut down trees slowly, and replant them, for more wood and paper products down the road. A government without a profit motive simply does not care.

[Conserative Morality]

Speaking of environmentalism, the state, corporations, and the joy of militant uprising against the oppressive oligarchy... Has anyone here seen "the coconut revolution"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 630784238#

You're real back and forth about this revolution thing.