Green Politics

[Dusk_Kittens]

I favor sane environmental causes; by that I mean that some environmentalists seem to forget that humanity is part of the environment as well, and I regard those environmentalists as ... well, ... let's say "a fanatical fringe element" within the environmentalist movement. I'm not using this as a means of excusing irresponsible behavior such as pollution; I mean to say that sometimes some environmentalists tilt at windmills and/or pursue legislation and/or legal judgments without considering the consequences for humanity (an example is the irrigation issue in the San Joaquin Valley in California, for which see this article as one of many such articles -- surely there is some way to save the endangered smelts and allow the irrigation to continue).

I also strongly support decentralization.

De-industrialization I'm not entirely sure about. It undeniably would have benefits, but it would result in disadvantages as well. I do favor an agrarian economy and lifestyle, but realistically, some industry is necessary. To take but one example, producing raw materials is great, but factories are needed to turn those raw materials into useful commodities (cotton becomes textiles, for example).

While I believe that militarism is unjust and economically untenable, I would also not like to see a nation become wholly defenseless against threats.

What type of Feminism are we talking about here? Second-Wave Feminism? Radical Feminism? Third-Wave Feminism? Feminarchy? Female Chauvinism? Reverse Sexism? Womanism? Sex-Positive Feminism? Gender Equality? There are many perspectives within the Feminist movement. Some are beneficial, and others are less so.

Some of the stated goals of Green movements are laudable, such as Social Justice, respect for Diversity, Grassroots Democracy, reduction of pollution, efforts to avert extinction of species, and a focus on Sustainability. Some are, however, idealistic to the point of naivete, such as Nonviolence; although violence is not the only answer to every situation, some situations require a violent response, or the result would be death, slavery, conquest, or some other equally undesirable outcome. Community-Based Economics is a bit of both; it has both pros and cons.

[Genivaria]

I favor sane environmental causes; by that I mean that some environmentalists seem to forget that humanity is part of the environment as well, and I regard those environmentalists as ... well, ... let's say "a fanatical fringe element" within the environmentalist movement. I'm not using this as a means of excusing irresponsible behavior such as pollution; I mean to say that sometimes some environmentalists tilt at windmills and/or pursue legislation and/or legal judgments without considering the consequences for humanity (an example is the irrigation issue in the San Joaquin Valley in California, for which see this article as one of many such articles -- surely there is some way to save the endangered smelts and allow the irrigation to continue).

I also strongly support decentralization.

De-industrialization I'm not entirely sure about. It undeniably would have benefits, but it would result in disadvantages as well. I do favor an agrarian economy and lifestyle, but realistically, some industry is necessary. To take but one example, producing raw materials is great, but factories are needed to turn those raw materials into useful commodities (cotton becomes textiles, for example).

While I believe that militarism is unjust and economically untenable, I would also not like to see a nation become wholly defenseless against threats.

What type of Feminism are we talking about here? Second-Wave Feminism? Radical Feminism? Third-Wave Feminism? Feminarchy? Female Chauvinism? Reverse Sexism? Womanism? Sex-Positive Feminism? Gender Equality? There are many perspectives within the Feminist movement. Some are beneficial, and others are less so.

Some of the stated goals of Green movements are laudable, such as Social Justice, respect for Diversity, Grassroots Democracy, reduction of pollution, efforts to avert extinction of species, and a focus on Sustainability. Some are, however, idealistic to the point of naivete, such as Nonviolence; although violence is not the only answer to every situation, some situations require a violent response, or the result would be death, slavery, conquest, or some other equally undesirable outcome. Community-Based Economics is a bit of both; it has both pros and cons.

Nonviolence could be simply interpreted as seeking peace, not being disarmed. That would be naive.

[New Ziedrich]

I don't like any Green party, or their policies.

[Zhugyu]

I prioritize people over plants.

Your program induces a mild nausea.

People can't live without plants. What is good for plants is, in the long run, usually good for people as well.

[Wamitoria]

I prioritize people over plants.

Your program induces a mild nausea.

People can't live without plants. What is good for plants is, in the long run, usually good for people as well.

It's good for plants to never cut down trees to build roads to hospitals. It's not good for people. That's where a lot of environmentalists and I come into conflict.

[Parhe]

I support bettering the environment and more reliance on technology that damages the environment less, but thats about it.

[Zhugyu]

De-industrialization I'm not entirely sure about. It undeniably would have benefits, but it would result in disadvantages as well. I do favor an agrarian economy and lifestyle, but realistically, some industry is necessary. To take but one example, producing raw materials is great, but factories are needed to turn those raw materials into useful commodities (cotton becomes textiles, for example).

De industrialization is not part of the platform of any Green Party I'm aware of. While some Greens may support this, it's hardly universal. What most if not all Greens do share is an emphasis on local, community based economics for various social and ecological reasons. This does not necessarily imply "deindustrialization". There's a big distinction been neo-primitivists and Greens.

[Zhugyu]

People can't live without plants. What is good for plants is, in the long run, usually good for people as well.

It's good for plants to never cut down trees to build roads to hospitals. It's not good for people. That's where a lot of environmentalists and I come into conflict.

That is a gross oversimplification of the issue. It is possible for human communities to live without destroying the biotic communities they are embedded in and depend on. This doesn't mean that one should never cut down trees or build hospitals. It does mean that one shouldn't destroy forests faster than they can grow back and on a global scale.

[Zhugyu]

I favor sane environmental causes; by that I mean that some environmentalists seem to forget that humanity is part of the environment as well, and I regard those environmentalists as ... well, ... let's say "a fanatical fringe element" within the environmentalist movement. I'm not using this as a means of excusing irresponsible behavior such as pollution; I mean to say that sometimes some environmentalists tilt at windmills and/or pursue legislation and/or legal judgments without considering the consequences for humanity (an example is the irrigation issue in the San Joaquin Valley in California, for which see this article as one of many such articles -- surely there is some way to save the endangered smelts and allow the irrigation to continue).

I also strongly support decentralization.

De-industrialization I'm not entirely sure about. It undeniably would have benefits, but it would result in disadvantages as well. I do favor an agrarian economy and lifestyle, but realistically, some industry is necessary. To take but one example, producing raw materials is great, but factories are needed to turn those raw materials into useful commodities (cotton becomes textiles, for example).

While I believe that militarism is unjust and economically untenable, I would also not like to see a nation become wholly defenseless against threats.

What type of Feminism are we talking about here? Second-Wave Feminism? Radical Feminism? Third-Wave Feminism? Feminarchy? Female Chauvinism? Reverse Sexism? Womanism? Sex-Positive Feminism? Gender Equality? There are many perspectives within the Feminist movement. Some are beneficial, and others are less so.

Some of the stated goals of Green movements are laudable, such as Social Justice, respect for Diversity, Grassroots Democracy, reduction of pollution, efforts to avert extinction of species, and a focus on Sustainability. Some are, however, idealistic to the point of naivete, such as Nonviolence; although violence is not the only answer to every situation, some situations require a violent response, or the result would be death, slavery, conquest, or some other equally undesirable outcome. Community-Based Economics is a bit of both; it has both pros and cons.

Nonviolence could be simply interpreted as seeking peace, not being disarmed. That would be naive.

Even Gandhi said that it's better to resist oppression violently than to not resist at all. I support resolution of conflicts through diplomacy and an economy that is not based on militarism. This doesn't mean I support the complete dismantling of any community's defenses. I also believe that communities have a right and an obligation to defend themselves from attack. This in no way conflicts with a philosophy of non-violence, as should be obvious to anyone who has studied Aikido or any other traditional martial art with a philosophical basis in non-violence.

[Mushet]

What does green politics mean? Because I support green policies, but green parties are universally insane.

Green Politics:
Supports the de-industrialization of nations, de-militarization of nations, and de-centralization of governments

Basic description sounds good to me

[Meowfoundland]

I'm a big supporter of Green policies, but the Green Party can go a bit overboard sometimes.

[Zhugyu]

I'm a big supporter of Green policies, but the Green Party can go a bit overboard sometimes.

As a registered Green, I will admit that the US Green Party does attract its fair share of kooks.

[Meowfoundland]

I'm a big supporter of Green policies, but the Green Party can go a bit overboard sometimes.

As a registered Green, I will admit that the US Green Party does attract its fair share of kooks.

I was meaning the Australian Greens, but I guess they can be similar.

[Zhugyu]

As a registered Green, I will admit that the US Green Party does attract its fair share of kooks.

I was meaning the Australian Greens, but I guess they can be similar.

I'm a fan of the German Greens, myself.

[Distruzio]

I am opposed to Green Politics. This includes "sustainability" initiatives, conservationism, crying about "peak oil" or "deforestation" etc etc. Essentially, if I meet a person identifying themselves as an "environmentalist," I categorize them as another advocator of genocide. It doesn't mean that we won't get along... just that I recognize that in order for humanity to to "save the planet" the vast majority of humanity must go away. Which means die. I recognize that "sustainability" requires humanity to be decivilized to pre-industrial revolution standards. Which means die.

No thanks. I'm not interested in genocidal Utopian unicorns. It ain't for me man.

The free market offers the only rational green friendly incentives.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

I am opposed to Green Politics. This includes "sustainability" initiatives, conservationism, crying about "peak oil" or "deforestation" etc etc. Essentially, if I meet a person identifying themselves as an "environmentalist," I categorize them as another advocator of genocide. It doesn't mean that we won't get along... just that I recognize that in order for humanity to to "save the planet" the vast majority of humanity must go away. Which means die. I recognize that "sustainability" requires humanity to be decivilized to pre-industrial revolution standards. Which means die.

No thanks. I'm not interested in genocidal Utopian unicorns. It ain't for me man.

The free market offers the only rational green friendly incentives.

What incentives would they be?

[Tubbsalot]

Why, corporations are forward-thinking long-term planners. The free market is already moving to reduce harmful effects of intensification, such as by the development and marketing of solar power and other renewable energies, and by self-regulating to operate fisheries at sustainable levels.

If the government would get their meddlesome beaks out of the free market, we'd already be living in a world of fusion power and flying cars.

[Georgism]

The Green Party of England and Wales is silly.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Why, corporations are forward-thinking long-term planners. The free market is already moving to reduce harmful effects of intensification, such as by the development and marketing of solar power and other renewable energies, and by self-regulating to operate fisheries at sustainable levels.

If the government would get their meddlesome beaks out of the free market, we'd already be living in a world of fusion power and flying cars.

Sure. Because alternative energy subsidies impede its production.

[Tubbsalot]

Sure. Because alternative energy subsidies impede its production.

You just don't understand the free market!! Unnatural big-government subsidies disrupt the free flow of self-prioritising capital and lead to an inefficient outcome!

[Risottia]

How many people support Green Politics/Economics on NationStates? Are you a member of a Green Party?

"Green Politics/Economics" is so wide a definition that it actually means very little.

Example: many people think that PV-solar is the "environmental-friendly" solution to produce power, yet they forget a) the environmental costs of the production, b) the heavy metals used (tellurium, cesium, just to name a few) and their potential as pollutant, c) the fact that no-one has yet a plan to dismantle them safely, d) the fact that PV is making a hit mostly because of gov't subsidies, e) that there's a difference between baseline power and peak power, and f) that no country has a smart power grid currently.

Environment, pollution, sustainability, renewable resources, reduction of waste should be a common concern of any serious political party (not necessarily with the same prospected solutions, of course!); and limiting one party's program to environmental issues only - as many "Green" parties do - is as wrong as ignoring them completely.

[Risottia]

If the government would get their meddlesome beaks out of the free market, we'd already be living in a world of fusion power

...

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Sure. Because alternative energy subsidies impede its production.

You just don't understand the free market!!

Wanna bet?

Unnatural big-government subsidies disrupt the free flow of self-prioritising capital and lead to an inefficient outcome!

It disrupts the flow of capital that would prioritise itself to the most profitable industry (fossil fuels) and redistributes it to socially preferable industries (alternative energies). While it's true that as coal/oil becomes harder to find its costs go up and as technology improves alternative energies become cheaper, and that at some point in the future those curves will cross and the free market will voluntarily switch to alternative energies, we want to make the switch a little sooner (pressures to reduce climate change and whatnot), so we need to expedite the process. We do this by subsidising alternative energies (which at present can't compete on its own with fossil fuel). If you're familiar with the law of demand, when its price decreases relative to its competitors, more of it is consumed.

[DaWoad]

As long as the benefits to people and green party policies align I'm in. Start talking about de-industrialization or limiting research or costing people their lives for the sake of "the planet" not so much.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

What does green politics mean? Because I support green policies, but green parties are universally insane.

Green Politics:
Supports the de-industrialization of nations, de-militarization of nations, and de-centralization of governments

Erm no...?