Slashdot Mirror

Talk is cheap

Put your money where you're mouth is and Support Sea Shepherd.

Put your money where you're mouth is and Support Sea Shepherd.

http://www.seashepherd.org/

Yeah, it's not like variations of the flu have killed more people than all of our wars combined. It's not like we have a lack of organizations that believe in terror or widespread murders. Heck, we don't even have any environmental radicals that just might look at a world wide population reduction as the best possible thing that could happen to the environment. Nope, no reason at all to be concerned about this....

"Sea Shepherd campaigns are guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature. Sections 21-24 of the Charter provides authority to individuals to act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws."

-- http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/laws-and-charters.html

Ramming whaling boats in international waters ("Non-violence"? "Civil disobedience"?) like common pirates?

Greenpeace does not ram. I think the organisation that you are looking for is Sea Shepard and even they, whilst they do try to stop "legal"/"scientific" whaling with dangerous direct action only tend to actually ram long term illegal whaling vessels.

But don't let facts get in the way of our big Greenpeace hate fest / Nuclear love in.

Galileo wasn't suggesting we need to take cold showers due to his discovery. Galileo wasn't suggesting new taxes due to his discovery. Galileo didn't suggest We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion either.

• The missing carbon
• Graph showing ice age with 12 times more CO2 than today.
• Polar bears
• Ethanol
• Ethanol again
• Climate cultist whack job from "Whale wars" believes quote We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.
• NASA's chief on global warming.
• The IPCC get their their asses handed to them in front of Congress in 1997. A personal favorite is this quote:

  The observed warming since the late 19th Century has only been 0.5 degrees Celsius, or less than one-third of the predicted value. Critics argued, as I did before this committee, that there would have to be a dramatic reduction in the forecast of future warming in order to reconcile the facts and the hypotheses.

  By 1995, in its second full assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of the critics' position: `When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account, most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity to the greenhouse effect is used. There is growing evidences that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.'

  Let me translate this statement. It means either it is not going to warm up as much as we said it would or something is hiding the warming. I predict that every attempt will be made to demonstrate the latter before admitting that the former is true.

My links are getting old it seems. I have a folder full of them, but a lot seems to have been eradicated by the cult of climate change. Feel free to use this stuff in your next big flame war, but I think you'll find that arguing with these idiots is pointless. Your best bet is to put together a well reasoned, informative essay... then wait for a related story and top post. You may be marked troll, but it doesn't matter. People like myself who don't agree with /.s group think tend to read at troll +6 anyway. In fact, I would have never seen your response if you had not been marked troll above... anyhow, we'll mod you up if you're hit with -1 disagree mod.

This sounds quite like one of the favorite tactics of the Sea Shepherds against the illegal Japanese whaling ships in the Southern Ocean. Except instead of launchers and parachutes they use Zodiacs and balls. http://www.seashepherd.org/

If you really, really believe that the Earth is a closed system, you better start looking at your duties to the rest of the human race. The definition of a sustainable closed system is that the wastes are recycled pretty much by natural processes to become usable resources again. We are so far away from that - mostly because of population - that it isn't funny.

Note that I am not talking about recycling paper and aluminium cans. I am referring to garbage and human wastes. Currently, in India much of the population defecates in open fields. This works fine below certain population levels because the wastes are natually recycled. India past that point a while back, like maybe 1900 or so. Maybe earlier, I don't really know.

I do know that above a population of maybe 200 million people there is no hope for a "sustainable" closed system. We are going to have to import resources from off-planet to keep this population. Or we can choose to decrease the population rather drastically. Almost overnight, because the resource and waste problem is going to catch up to us very quickly. And every year that goes by with people saying that space exploration is too expensive and all the while people are having more children just makes the problem worse.

So think about this very carefully. Take a look at this. There are some very serious people thinking that the Earth is indeed a closed system, and it is high time we get the population down to under 1 billion or fewer. Think about what it would take to decrease the population by 5/6ths in 20 or 30 years. Because without off-planet resources that might be all the time we have left.

Everyone thinks Canada is our nice neighbors to the north (if they happen to be American). BUT they have a pretty corrupt government run heavily on business interests. For example it is illegal to photograph or even view baby seals being killed for fur (I wish I was making that up; check out Sea Shepherd for more) unless you have a license to kill seals. Laws like that make the scenario in the parent story entirely likely.

yeah, but that's because he though Greenpeace wasn't radical enough and went and started Sea Shepherds - now they are nuts.

Visited their site and I love it. Frankly, I would be in favor of mining/torpedoing whaling vessels, if not for the environmental impact of sinking a ship full of fuel. I don't see a problem with killing people bent on genocide of intelligent species. By and large I am against violence, but what these people do hardly qualifies.

What they are trying to do here is teh gool ol' carrot and stick. make sure the comapiens that do good gets highlighted (cue Nokia) and the at the bad ones gets som bad publicity for it. What's wrong with that?

The idea that Nokia is a "good company". Until Nokia gets to 0% output (e.g. every ton of everything that they emit gets fixed somewhere; every ounce of product material is accounted for one way or another on the recycling end, et cetera) then they are just another planet-raping bastard enabled by a clueless populace.

Personally I find it a very civilized way of getting companies to clean up their act, far better that the nutters going burning down offices or simiar in some stupid effort to make their point heard

Yes, when the fuck will they learn that the only thing that will work is bringing consequences to decision-makers? If you are going to engage in an act of terrorism, by god make it an effective one. Nothing is more offensive than a pointless act of destruction that simply leads to more of whatever you were railing against. If you're going to burn something down, burn down the guy who made the decision that you have a problem with. Arson only results in an insurance claim, a new building, and a lot of pollution.

militarization of space.

You think that's scary, consider the militarization of the Cult of Climate Change. Cult leader Dr. James "Fake Data" Hansen with access to military command? That's much more frightening. There are factions of this cult that honestly believe, "We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion" to stop global warming.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer announces a multi-billion dollar investment in a fleet of submarines.

You kid, but wait till Google has some shit that China, Iran, or even the US doesn't like. Or Greenpeace or some other aggressive group doesn't like.

Accidents do happen at sea!

Your example of Greenpeace as an aggressive group of people is misplaced imho. Perhaps they're loud , annoying and obnoxious, but aggressive they are not. They try to obstruct whaling for example, by putting their life at stake in small boats in the line of fire of harpoons.

Now compare this to Sea Shepherd, for example. One of Sea Shepherd continuous campaigns is the protection of whales in arctic territories. They've declared war on the whaler's ships and are ramming them.

http://www.seashepherd.org/whales/
they're

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer announces a multi-billion dollar investment in a fleet of submarines.

You kid, but wait till Google has some shit that China, Iran, or even the US doesn't like. Or Greenpeace or some other aggressive group doesn't like.

Accidents do happen at sea!

Your example of Greenpeace as an aggressive group of people is misplaced imho. Perhaps they're loud , annoying and obnoxious, but aggressive they are not. They try to obstruct whaling for example, by putting their life at stake in small boats in the line of fire of harpoons.

Now compare this to Sea Shepherd, for example. One of Sea Shepherd continuous campaigns is the protection of whales in arctic territories. They've declared war on the whaler's ships and are ramming them.

http://www.seashepherd.org/whales/
they're

an overly-effective disease will destroy its own ecosystem and thus die out.

Exactly! Humans are the AIDS of the Earth. If we are to survive global warming, we must selectively 'thin out' the population. About five billion people should do it, and only believers, true stewards of the planet, should be allowed to live.

Are you so confident that this will have no effect on climate that you're willing to bet billions of lives on it? That seems crazy to me.

You know what seems crazy to me? Alarmists like yourself. Last I heard, global warming alarmists were calling mankind the "AIDS of the Earth" and wanted to kill 5 billion people to save the planet for themselves.

Climatologists have actually done the math and generally agree that the risk is significant.

Yeah, there's general agreement... that's why there's so little controversy surrounding the subject. <sarcasm /> Are you even reading what you're saying or is it just duckspeak at this point? Quack quack quack.

What is the downside in proactively reducing fossil fuel consumption?

Hmmm, two things right off the top of my head... Doing so will be incredibly expensive for developed nations. Nuclear waste isn't 'recyclable' like CO2. Whether you like it or not, nuclear is the only viable replacement for coal currently. I think it's extremely arrogant to for you to say you can properly manage nuclear waste that will be around for 10,000 to 1,000,000 years. You guys can't even produce an accurate computer model.

We're going to have to reduce fossil fuel consumption eventually anyway

Not in our lifetime.

so getting started early and possibly avoiding an immense global disaster seems only prudent.

First, you've yet to demonstrate any evidence of imminent global disaster.

Secondly, your solutions so far have done nothing but cause global disaster. Look at what corn biofuel has produced...

• Starvation of the world's poor
• an increasingly giant dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico
• more CO2 than if you'd just stuck with fossil fuels in the first place.

I guess that starvation is all part of the plan though... killing the "AIDS of the Earth." Right? If you'd like to claim those aren't intended consequences, then perhaps you should give it a little more time, careful consideration, and evaluate exactly what it is you advocating.

There have been incidents.

Also - apparently in spite of --now-- publicly trying to distance themselves from the Sea Shephard, there are credible ties to GP and a ship specifically built to ram and sink whaling ships.

/P

Aside from burning food and assuring increased starvation throughout the world, they are also creating a widening dead zone in the gulf of Mexico thanks to the fertilizer run off. It gets better, it's quite likely their solution is actually accelerating CO2 production. It's time a few people admitted these "climate scientists" should consult real scientists before hatching their cult's crackpot schemes.

The immediate and most important result is that they're starving people to death via the destruction of a major part of our world's food supply... burning our grain and poisoning our fish. But perhaps that was the plan all along.

I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the "AIDS of the Earth." I make no apologies for that statement.

...

We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.

Apparently the Dalai Lama is a supporter maybe you should be too.

If this is the 'vandals' you are referring to, then i'm all for it.

The Nazis killed a lot of other people (even more than the 6 million Jews as you mentioned), but most of those killings weren't made based on their races or whatever general category they happened to fall in. As far as I know, the only groups that the Nazis determined to systematically exterminate were the Jews and the homosexuals. That, instead of the shear numbers of killings themselves or any comparison between them, is what I think fundamentally important as far as teaching the kids is concerned.

So if the Nazis had been completely indiscriminate in their killing, it's not as bad? It's not individual lives, but the collective to which they belong, that matters?

That might explain why the Left screams about Nazis as if they were evil penultimate, but merely shrug their shoulders at this sort of thing:

"We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. " -- Paul Watson.

My question for these people is always the same: Who do you propose to eliminate first, Mr. Watson? Why not simply follow your thinking to its logical end and come out in favor of Socialism (particularly its National and International varieties), seeing as that ideology radically outperformed even the worst natural disasters when it comes to population culling?

Oh, wait, the enviros already are socialistic. Never mind, then. Just tweak things a bit so it's nice and indiscriminate like the parent would prefer, and avoid all the moral issues.

The truth is, most environmental organizations are about as cash-strapped and close to ruin as they can get (discounting the obvious Greenpeace and PETA, which are practically corporations nowadays). Personally, I have trouble thinking of one thing the human race has done to improve the environment, other than fixing its own mistakes. We've got a lot of them to fix, too. I feel my hard-earned money does more work improving the world as a whole when I donate to organizations that follow similar philosophies.

To remain on-topic,
http://www.seashepherd.org/,
http://www.mote.org/, and
http://www.dolphinproject.org/
http://www.tursiops.org/
are good places to start.

they probably think that the death of all humanity is ultimately a good thing...the word you're searching for is 'misanthropic' and yes some of the kookoo activists are deeply misanthropic, eg. Paul Watson. Misanthropes are as bad as Social Darwinists.

No being can stop using resources. It's simply a question of ecology. How much do you give back to the life-sustaining biosphere, it's vigor and diversity? Only robo-heads assume that technology must by definition consume increasingly vast amounts of resources. It's our sloppiness, technological youth, and immature economics (eg. GDP benefits from ecological disaster) that keeps us overusing and laying waste. (Sidestepping population debates here.)

Most environmentalists are all about appropriate technology, and want nothing more than society to act upon some of the basic principles of progress, such as "waste is a costly inefficiency" and "knowledge must complexify". That way we'll begin to understand chaotic systems like ecologies and develop cheaper, higher tech stuff that pollutes WAY less or not at all.

I think a bamboo bike in mass production would have to be pretty high-tech to succeed. And, like many environmentalists, I look forward to cleverly designed industry, cities, and social conditions--appropriate (sustainable) technology. It's conservative, applies the precautionary principle, but it's not technophobic, its really an argument about what technology and how to deploy it.

Now, if you're looking for terrorists, look no further than Sea Shepherd. Once upon the time, a Greenpeace activist took the club away from a guy who was clubbing a baby seal. He was ejected from the organization, and started Sea Shepherd. Among other activities, one night they sank half of Iceland's whaling fleet. No lives were lost. (Compare this to the French government who can't sink one measly ship without killing somebody.) History of Sea Shepherd here. Feel free to make your own judgments about whether they're the Good Guy or the Bad Guys.