Slashdot Mirror
Green Geeks?
sigmatt asks: "I've often wondered where Slashdot readers stand on environmental
issues. This might be considered a little off topic for this site, but so many programmers that I know, including myself, are outdoorsy
people in their other life, and I'm interested in the opinion of the wider geek community. The local issue in my part of the world at the moment is logging of old growth forests, primarily used for wood chips. The wood chips are not very valuable (as low as AU$7 a ton - that's US$3.50!), but it
is the easy option - and I suspect it leads to the highest profits and quickest company growth. Unfortunately, our wonderful forests - with
so many potential future uses (fine furniture, tourism, and, of course, my own hiking trips) are being wasted away at an alarming rate. Recently
the tactics of those opposing the practice of woodchipping our old growth forests have turned to attacking the tourism industry in order to try to make a government who won't listen change its mind. For example this site
ripping off
another site, and the posting of a controversial bill board in Sydney
airport. What do you think about these approaches?"
Breathing air you don't have to see and cut and chew (I grew up in smoggy L.A.) is hardly a mystical issue!
... or are AI. :)
And that's just the selfish dimension of environmentalism -- which I hope you share? (Hey, I dunno -- maybe you supply your own O2
I do know a lot of tech people who love to spend time outdoors. And in the Silicon Valley to S.F. area, and Seattle, too, there are plenty of level-headed "tree huggers."
Check out what the greens really believe in:
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
Right, don't read their platform. No, don't do that! Instead listen to some libertarian loony who apparently likes to spend his free time trolling non-smokers newsgroups.
And thusly it follows that the Greens obviously want more pollution! Aha! Oh wait, except THEY DON'T.
Yeah, we all know that always works! Let's just disregard the vast discrepency in the ability for an individual versus major polluting corporations in sustaining a legal battle.
Except, oh, this little thing called "democracy". Strangely this "no recourse" actually seems to be working somewhat (now at least it is politically "trendy" to be environmentally conscious).
Right. Let's not disincentivize people from doing this in the first place. Let's incentivize them to cover it up and then wage long inconclusive legal battles with individuals. Hey, it's not my problem! By the way, please tell me how you are going to rationally privatize and proprietize things like air and water quality. How about corporations that just *poof* go bankrupt or vanish, or whose pollution isn't discovered until years after they are around (buried waste, etc.). Yeah, let's just hope this system works.
Right, let's not put crooks in jail because that would hurt the economy! Seriously, if we have to "destroy" "all the large and small companies in the country", I think we are is seriously bad shape.
the rest of the post is just worse drivel not even worth responding to...just wanted to address the Green bashing
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
This may be a devil's advocate troll, but what the heck:
:)
Check out what the greens really believe in: http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html Don't vote for a party if you think just by the name they are pro-environment.
Er, OK, don't vote for as party just by its name. Gotcha. Can I choose by color?
And remember, the BIGGEST polluter in the world is the US government, and the worst one in this country is the all the federal and state governments. Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.
First of all that's utter nonsense; second, it is irrelevant unless you're saying the gov't should clean up its act along with everyone else. Remember, America consumes about 25% of the world's energy, any improvement will make a difference.
And the greens want MORE government, not less.
No, many would trim the fat from the military or farm subsidies, for 2 of 1000 examples.
A company wrongs you, you can sue them. When the government does it, you have no recourse.
That's wrong, people sue the gov't all the time. I don't know why so many people have this 12th century view of sovereign immunity. Before you argue with me that I don't know anything about suing the gov't, (1) I'm a lawyer, and (2) I used to work for a federal appeals courts, and wrote up dozen cases where the gov't was a defendant. Not just civil rights, either.
Best solution for the environment is privatization of land and a rational court system to sue for damages. You pollute my drinking water, I sue you. EVen if you are the government.
We have that now. It's not enough. Unless if by "You pollute my drinking water, I sue you" you mean a strict approach of suing over any pollution -- now, that would cripple both the courts and industry. Good job.
Also, a wait-to-sue approach means we'd have to wait for the nuclear reactor down the street to melt down before we could regulate it. If we were still alive.
And, while we're at it, how many jobs would exist if all the large and small companies in the country were destroyed? Where would the tax money come from?
How many jobs would exist if everyone died? Where would the tax money come from? Equally compelling and difficult to answer questions.
If you don't understand economics, and want to help the environment, you vote green, and your vote is an endorsement for wholesale environmental destruction. If you DO understand economics, and you want to protect the environment, you vote libertarian.
Uh, proof? Your say-so? Besides, you just told us not to vote for a party by its name alone.
Most geeks are actually libertarians, though the geeks on slashdot seem to be mostly socialists-- I suspect this is because most geeks don't hang out on slashdot, and mostly the slashdot is the LAN admin, Server Admin crowd (rather than computer, electrical and software engineers.)
Your insights are fascinating. And unsupported by any evidence.
I know, a bunch of socialists are going to scream their empty heads off about this post- but please, don't waste my time. Show how market economics supports your position. (And if you think market economics are irrelevant, then you fit the definition of "not knowing anything about economics."
You haven't even defined "market economics" -- an incredibly vague term -- and I doubt you could anyway. If you do so, please include whose analysis of market economics you adhere to and why. Also unequivocal proof that this analysis is correct and not susceptible to market failures without government regulation.
This country is heading towards tyranny and socialism, and will go the way of the USSR (with a similar 58 million klilled) if we don't reign in the out of control federal government.)
Tyranny and socialism? Well, I suppose we're halfway there. And the word is "rein."
Economics are a science. A Geek, should take science into account- rather than following a religion. You wouldn't look to the church to decide your OS, would you? So why look to the church (or the agnostic mysticism of socialism) to determine your economic policy?
Economics is a dismal science. Even economists will tell you that. Despite all the mathematics there is still a fair amount of art involved, and if you really think economics is a monolithic institution, get two economists into a room and watch the fur fly. It's not pretty. Don't get be wrong, I have friends who are economists, and I like them. The good ones don't claim to be omniscient.
Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution. Be a Geek and make a scientifically based decision.
Hey, we finally agree on something. You to add, "Please disregard the preceding rant."
Beneath my insouciant abuse is a salient point: nothing is as simple as signing on with the right political club, green or libertarian. You must think for yourself, and if you're like most people you'll be hard pressed to find a party you agree with 100% of the time. Also, beware people who throw out arguments without facts to back them up.
I could provide detailed rebuttals, but you haven't made any concrete statements of fact or opinion taht would support reasoned debate. That's not a put-down, it's a fact. And certainly you would agree we should decide things on the facts?
BTW, I'm not a socialist, though I probably appear one to you.
P.S. Offtopic and Troll police -- IMHO this has been a fairly mild-mannered effort to address the points raised in the parent's post. I really don't think i could be much more charitable, but hope this is informative. Or interesting. Or insightful.
I've found that most computer and science people are pro-technology and anti-mysticism and so have little interest in "issues" such as environmentalism.
;-)
Since when is environmentalism mystic? Seems like common sense that one would prefer drinkable water, rivers that don't burn and air that makes the sky look blue instead of brown.
Unless your claim is that technology will be sufficiently strong to counter the negative health benefits of those things...
Sure, the Greens are rather extreme, but ultimately I find their extremeness the least harmful of the possible choices.
The democrats want to take away our guns. That would lead to horrible results, as it would take away the true power from the hands of the people and into the hands of the government. They want to keep draconian drug laws. Not only are these laws unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, they affect directly what I can and cannot do. They will appoint Supreme Court justices who tend to take away state rights. They generally stand for the death penalty. The anti-terrorism bills they pass take away basic freedoms of Americans.
The republicans are no better in some areas, like terrorism and drug laws, and are worse in some others. They want to implement school vouchers, which will destroy the public schools which both of my parents teach in, by taking away the smarter and more wealthy kids and leaving all the poor dumb ones. They are generally lenient towards monopolies, unless those monopolies happen to be labor unions. They tend to be less aware of economic bads like pollution which need to be mitigated through taxes. They tend to favor making the income tax system even more regressive than it already is. They want to make unconstitutional abortion laws which fly in the face of the Commerce Clause.
The libertarians are probably the most dangerous of them all. They want to keep government regulation of the monetary system while removing all checks on economic bads and monopolies. They want a free for all with regard to drugs such that it will no longer be possible to determine what is safe and effective. They want personal possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Needless to say for most, they would destroy our country.
The greens have their own crazy ideas, but I don't think any of them would destroy our country. They want tough discrimination laws. While I disagree on principle, because I think anyone who wants to be a racist should be free to do so, I personally am not a racist, and stopping discrimination isn't exactly a bad thing. They want to limit or eliminate the use of nuclear power plants. While I feel that as long as the power plant pays taxes which pay to dispose of the economic bads they create they should be allowed to stay, I don't think it would be that big of a deal if the price of energy went up a little bit. Yeah, we'd probably see some inflation, but inflation isn't such a bad thing unless you have a lot of cash, and I don't. They want a high minimum wage. Again, I disagree on principle, but I don't think it's going to hurt society if we pay our burger flippers a little more. And if a higher minimum wage actually does cause higher unemployment (I doubt it would, but would just cause higher burger prices), then that would be quickly repealed, and no real harm would be done (since there would be unemployment available in the mean time).
So basically while I disagree with the Greens on a lot of issues, I don't think they're significant enough to override the places where I strongly agree with them. Drug laws, tax justice, political reform, state power, free speech, environmental importance (though not their precise handling of it, I favor economic stimulation rather than legislative), national debt, trade, anti-trust enforcement, etc.
Actually my biggest fear about the greens is their tendency to be overly pacifist with regard to foreign diplomacy. And that's the single reason why even though I did vote for Nader I really didn't want him to actually win. But in reality, if he had won, I'm sure that he would have chosen a strong cabinet which would have made up for most of his weaknesses in this regard.
I'm an environmentalist. But not one of the crazy, chain-yourself-to-a-tree types-- I just make an effort to reduce my impact, without sacrificing huge things from my life. Here's my short list of things you can do that will make a big difference without upsetting your lifestyle terribly or requiring you to cover your property in solar panels.
1. Replace your lightbulbs with compact fluorescents. Yeah, some of them suck, but not all of them. Several brands are indistinguishable from incandescents. They are available dimmable, 3-way, R30 and R45 reflectors, etc... and they use around 1/5 the power of incandescents of the same brightness.
2. Turn off your PC when you're not there. Yeah, it's gonna kill your d.net stats, but every bit helps. Leave your server box up, but do you really need all five of those desktops on?
3. Lower your thermostat 1 degree from where it sits now in winter, and raise it 1 degree in the summer.
4. Insulate your house and water heater well.
For extra credit:
5. Consider a reasonably efficient car as your next purchase. I have a Civic HX-- gets about 40mpg. Other options: Civic (also available as a hybrid), Jetta TDI, Toyota Prius, Ford Escape HEV, etc... Your car uses as much power as your house. This is a good place to cut down. But you don't even have to go this far-- if everybody picked a vehicle that got 1 or 2mpg better than their last, we'd all be better off. So step up to a cleaner car, but there's no need to go straight for a 1-person go-kart powered by your sense of self-satisfaction.
6. Look for more efficient refrigerators, water heaters, AC, heaters, washing machines, dryers, and so forth. When yours wear out, consider a cleaner model.
Yes there are a lot of gratuitous lawsuits. If it makes you any happier, I don't particularly like the "nanny state" protecting us from cigarrettes or bad food either.
The problem is, most of the time lawsuits are NOT a disincentive. Yes, once in a while a bad company will get caught and will have to shell out some money to somebody to keep them quiet. Here are a couple of flaws of the "let the courts settle it" puritanism:
1) The damage is already done. Courts only settle things AFTER THE FACT. This does not disincentivize companies from acting badly as long as they think they can cover it up, and shut up the random person that is brave enough to mount a legal challenge. Do I really have to parade out the history of awful things corporations have done without upfront legel checks? Did you miss that whole Enron thing?
2) You are not the only owner of your property. Wow, did I really say that? I bet I am some evil demented socialist! "Property" exists *because* of the government, not despite it. There are things that we share in common as a *society*. Things like waterways, airways, natural wonders, the environment system in general. No, I don't want somebody, say, dumping tons of mercury in their backyard just because it is theirs. Strangely, pollution has a way of ignoring property titles and hurting *everybody*.
What you fail to realize is that while the government may be an evil monopoly, the same can be true of corporations in a free market. Out of the kettle into the frying pan. The answer is not to just restrict one, and ignore the other. The answer is to judiciously limit both. Surely as an erudite free marketist, you will admit that free markets, without any external controls tend to self destruct, i.e., conglomerate into mega-monopolies. Tell me how a monopoly of corporate conglomerates is different from this evil thing called "government". It could be argued that in this age of globalization, many international corporations have MORE power than nations. Is corporate sovereignty better than national sovereignty?
The compromise between individual and collective power is historic and unending. Right now, it is my opinion that power unbalanced and concentrated more in the "collectives" called corporations. Old school conservatives will admit this, but you cannot? In fact, I find it downright strange that self titled libertarians aren't more interested in being free from the influence of large corporations as well as government.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"Green" is just another word for "Communist"
That depends on the Green. But strong environmental laws fit perfectly well with a capitalist agenda.
How? Consider air pollution. Air is something that we all own. If I build an incinerator for waste disposal, what I'm really doing is selling a decrease in quality of your air. Should I be allowed to do that?
If the answer is yes, then clearly I should have to pay for it. Otherwise we're faced with that classic economic problem, a tragedy of the commons. Of course, some Greens say, "No! No pollution, ever," which is a bit silly. And others say, "Well, ok, but we must regulate."
Other Greens, though, favor market-based mechanisms, like carbon taxes and tradable pollution permits. This is a kind of environmentalism that Adam Smith would like; instead of taxing things that people should do (like earning income) we can tax people for things they shouldn't do (like emitting the particles that contribute to asthma).