You know if you click on the link I provided, you'll find out that it goes directly to a list of Greenpeace accomplishments...
"But I won't bother listing all the good things Greenpeace has done over the past three years. If you really want to know, you'll look it up on their website."
But, as you just said, they get arrested and face the legal consequences for their actions. Granted, the consequences are usually no more then a night or two in jail and maybe some community service - although sometimes a fair bit more.
The activists also don't shout insults and threats because they accept being arrested as part of the process. Instead, they shout things like, "Stop destructive logging!"
And they don't complain about the legal consequences of their actions - although it is legitimate to say so if you are being unjustly persecuted, and they will do that.
Now, I wouldn't put Greenpeace activists in the same league as Gandhi. Gandhi was the man. But I do think Greenpeace's civil-disobedience is in the same tradition, and certainly a legitimate tactic.
I have to point out that you've shifted your argument away from calling Greenpeace activists "ecoterrorists" to calling us "spoiled rich kids". I'll take that as progress.
And I do get paid to do my job. It's a job. I don't make tons, but I do like my job and I bet there are a lot of people who would love to have it. That's part of why I work hard and long hours - because I do think I owe these people something. Also because, in my opinion, the work I'm doing is important.
But I won't bother listing all the good things Greenpeace has done over the past three years. If you really want to know, you'll look it up on their website.
Who knows? If you like what you see, maybe you'll even chip in a few dollars, or become a cyberactivist.
Those people had nothing to do with Greenpeace. Greenpeace activists have never spiked anything. I don't even personally know anyone who has ever done any tree spiking, but a google search turned up these guys, so maybe save your anger for them (although it looks like they stopped over a decade ago).
And if logged forests grow back so fast then why do we keep logging the ancient/old-growth forests out of existence (which is what Greenpeace really objects to)? Why not just re-log the already logged areas and leave the last few unlogged areas as they are?
As for recycling paper, everyone form the US government to paper products companies agree that recycling keeps paper out of landfills and incinerators, saves energy and reduces waste.
Speaking as a US citizen, I have to point out that civil-disobedience is a valuable part of my history. The women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement are two good examples of movements that likely would not have succeeded without using civil-disobedience.
Peaceful civil-disobedience is about as far from terrorism (which by definition uses violence or the threat of violence) as you can get.
If you aren't familiar with the concept of civil-disobedience, you can find lots of good stuff through google - like this essay.
For the record, Greenpeace has never spiked trees or sabotaged a truck (unless you count trucks they own).
As for the putting small boats in front of big ships - I've been one of the people in the small boat, and you don't do anything that would put someone else's ship at risk. They always have plenty of room to stop, and/or somewhere to turn. Safety is always kept foremost in mind.
In reality, it is fairly common for peaceful environmental activists to be threatened and physically assaulted.
Greenpeace ships each have their own LAN with a Linux server. Many of the tech community within Greenpeace has been lobbying for more use of Linux, but it's hard going explaining to environmental activists the importance of open source.
As it seems it is hard going explaining environmentalism or even activism in general to a lot of the tech world.
I think in the near future you will see more Linux on Greenpeace ships.
There, I think, is the misunderstanding. Greenpeace is not against technology (computers, electricity, etc.). But global warming is a reality, unsustainable logging in ancient forests is a reality, the fact that we are fishing the beyond the ocean's capacity is a reality.
We're going to have to deal with this stuff sooner or later. We need to do things the smart way (such as recycled paper, targeted fishing, more renewable energy and conservation).
And I'll admit that we will probably have to curtail some things (ex. stop fishing in some areas for a while to let the stocks recover).
But personally I think human cleverness can solve the problems human cleverness created.
Sorry to say I don't think your facts are straight.
Could be some hot heads only claiming they were Greenpeace. Could be they didn't even say they were with Greenpeace, and your friend just assumed it. Heck, could even be that the whole thing is made up. But if it did happen, then I hope the pepper sprayers were charged.
And yeah, logging is all good and fine - so long as it's done right. Too often it's not. Globally the forests are disapearing, and it looks like Greenpeace USA (the real Greenpeace USA) thinks there is some room for improvement in Oregon.
I like wiping with something plush and comfy as much as the next man, but there's no reason not to look for the recycled paper symbol when you're shopping.
Now, now, she's a good boat. Solid built, and I think "well aged" is a much kinder phrasing.
And none of us want the environment polluted, but we all buy computers (which it takes a massive amount of pollution to build), use electricity (mostly not from renewable sources), and own cars (or boats). Because we need to get things done.
I could live in a mountain hut and spend my time on organic gardening, but that wouldn't get much done. And chasing whalers (log shipments, or nuclear waste cargo ships, etc.) doesn't work too well with a sailboat (plus, it's hard to figure out where to put the helicopter).
p.s. Nothing against the mountain dwelling vegetable eaters out there. Good on you. To be honest I might join you if I was better at gardening.
Greenpeace activists are sometimes acquitted using the necessity defense. That is, individuals are not breaking the law if they are acting to prevent a greater harm. More often, the activists are convicted, but most of the laws broken are fairly minor (trespass or public disturbance or some such). But the moral underpinning of the necessity defense still holds.
However, Greenpeace activists are also committed to non-violence. I've seen plenty put their own safety on the line, but they are very careful not to put another person at risk.
I'm posting from Suva where I'm waiting for the Rainbow Warrior - so I don't have any more technical info then the story. But I can say that wifi will make life and work easier for the crew (whenever they can get it).
Typically, Greenpeace ships run two sessions via INMARSAT a day - where email is transferred, weather maps are downloaded, etc. Cost is around $8 USD per minute, and connection time is usually about three minutes. So, there's not much opportunity for web surfing.
When I get off ship or into port I usually go straight to an internet cafe to get my fix.
I was on board the Greenpeace ship in question at the time. They rammed us, not the other way around (actually more of a sideswipe).
Luckily, we had a video camera rolling. The videotape clearly showed the much larger whaling factory ship at fault. Lloyds (the periodical of note on this subject) listed them as at fault.
Fact is that some people throw the word "terrorist" around like they would "Nazi". If you want you can read my account of the incident, written and posted from the ship at the time.
You might also be amused to read about our response.
Nope, Greenpeace does not do animal rights issues. Among other things, Greenpeace works to protect endangered species and habitat, but that's different.
And, speaking as someone who has worked on Greenpeace ships, and paid an unwelcome visit to a few others (carrying destructively/illegally logged wood, for example) I know first hand that Greenpeace activists are extremely safety consious.
We might take a few risks for ourselves when we have to, but NEVER put anyone else's safety at risk. Property damage is also against the Greenpeace ethic.
Finally, Greenpeace activists are accountable to the law and take responsibility for their actions. (Although I will admit we have pretty good lawyers.)
Slashdot Mirror
You know if you click on the link I provided, you'll find out that it goes directly to a list of Greenpeace accomplishments... "But I won't bother listing all the good things Greenpeace has done over the past three years. If you really want to know, you'll look it up on their website."
But, as you just said, they get arrested and face the legal consequences for their actions. Granted, the consequences are usually no more then a night or two in jail and maybe some community service - although sometimes a fair bit more.
The activists also don't shout insults and threats because they accept being arrested as part of the process. Instead, they shout things like, "Stop destructive logging!"
And they don't complain about the legal consequences of their actions - although it is legitimate to say so if you are being unjustly persecuted, and they will do that.
Now, I wouldn't put Greenpeace activists in the same league as Gandhi. Gandhi was the man. But I do think Greenpeace's civil-disobedience is in the same tradition, and certainly a legitimate tactic.
I have to point out that you've shifted your argument away from calling Greenpeace activists "ecoterrorists" to calling us "spoiled rich kids". I'll take that as progress.
And I do get paid to do my job. It's a job. I don't make tons, but I do like my job and I bet there are a lot of people who would love to have it. That's part of why I work hard and long hours - because I do think I owe these people something. Also because, in my opinion, the work I'm doing is important.
But I won't bother listing all the good things Greenpeace has done over the past three years. If you really want to know, you'll look it up on their website.
Who knows? If you like what you see, maybe you'll even chip in a few dollars, or become a cyberactivist.
Those people had nothing to do with Greenpeace. Greenpeace activists have never spiked anything. I don't even personally know anyone who has ever done any tree spiking, but a google search turned up these guys, so maybe save your anger for them (although it looks like they stopped over a decade ago).
And if logged forests grow back so fast then why do we keep logging the ancient/old-growth forests out of existence (which is what Greenpeace really objects to)? Why not just re-log the already logged areas and leave the last few unlogged areas as they are?
As for recycling paper, everyone form the US government to paper products companies agree that recycling keeps paper out of landfills and incinerators, saves energy and reduces waste.
Profile on the man can be found here. And you might want to also read some of the more obvious lies he's told in the past.
Speaking as a US citizen, I have to point out that civil-disobedience is a valuable part of my history. The women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement are two good examples of movements that likely would not have succeeded without using civil-disobedience.
Peaceful civil-disobedience is about as far from terrorism (which by definition uses violence or the threat of violence) as you can get.
If you aren't familiar with the concept of civil-disobedience, you can find lots of good stuff through google - like this essay.
For the record, Greenpeace has never spiked trees or sabotaged a truck (unless you count trucks they own).
As for the putting small boats in front of big ships - I've been one of the people in the small boat, and you don't do anything that would put someone else's ship at risk. They always have plenty of room to stop, and/or somewhere to turn. Safety is always kept foremost in mind.
In reality, it is fairly common for peaceful environmental activists to be threatened and physically assaulted.
Greenpeace ships each have their own LAN with a Linux server. Many of the tech community within Greenpeace has been lobbying for more use of Linux, but it's hard going explaining to environmental activists the importance of open source. As it seems it is hard going explaining environmentalism or even activism in general to a lot of the tech world. I think in the near future you will see more Linux on Greenpeace ships.
There, I think, is the misunderstanding. Greenpeace is not against technology (computers, electricity, etc.). But global warming is a reality, unsustainable logging in ancient forests is a reality, the fact that we are fishing the beyond the ocean's capacity is a reality. We're going to have to deal with this stuff sooner or later. We need to do things the smart way (such as recycled paper, targeted fishing, more renewable energy and conservation). And I'll admit that we will probably have to curtail some things (ex. stop fishing in some areas for a while to let the stocks recover). But personally I think human cleverness can solve the problems human cleverness created.
Sorry to say I don't think your facts are straight. Could be some hot heads only claiming they were Greenpeace. Could be they didn't even say they were with Greenpeace, and your friend just assumed it. Heck, could even be that the whole thing is made up. But if it did happen, then I hope the pepper sprayers were charged. And yeah, logging is all good and fine - so long as it's done right. Too often it's not. Globally the forests are disapearing, and it looks like Greenpeace USA (the real Greenpeace USA) thinks there is some room for improvement in Oregon. I like wiping with something plush and comfy as much as the next man, but there's no reason not to look for the recycled paper symbol when you're shopping.
Now, now, she's a good boat. Solid built, and I think "well aged" is a much kinder phrasing. And none of us want the environment polluted, but we all buy computers (which it takes a massive amount of pollution to build), use electricity (mostly not from renewable sources), and own cars (or boats). Because we need to get things done. I could live in a mountain hut and spend my time on organic gardening, but that wouldn't get much done. And chasing whalers (log shipments, or nuclear waste cargo ships, etc.) doesn't work too well with a sailboat (plus, it's hard to figure out where to put the helicopter). p.s. Nothing against the mountain dwelling vegetable eaters out there. Good on you. To be honest I might join you if I was better at gardening.
Greenpeace activists are sometimes acquitted using the necessity defense. That is, individuals are not breaking the law if they are acting to prevent a greater harm. More often, the activists are convicted, but most of the laws broken are fairly minor (trespass or public disturbance or some such). But the moral underpinning of the necessity defense still holds. However, Greenpeace activists are also committed to non-violence. I've seen plenty put their own safety on the line, but they are very careful not to put another person at risk.
I'm posting from Suva where I'm waiting for the Rainbow Warrior - so I don't have any more technical info then the story. But I can say that wifi will make life and work easier for the crew (whenever they can get it). Typically, Greenpeace ships run two sessions via INMARSAT a day - where email is transferred, weather maps are downloaded, etc. Cost is around $8 USD per minute, and connection time is usually about three minutes. So, there's not much opportunity for web surfing. When I get off ship or into port I usually go straight to an internet cafe to get my fix.
I was on board the Greenpeace ship in question at the time. They rammed us, not the other way around (actually more of a sideswipe). Luckily, we had a video camera rolling. The videotape clearly showed the much larger whaling factory ship at fault. Lloyds (the periodical of note on this subject) listed them as at fault. Fact is that some people throw the word "terrorist" around like they would "Nazi". If you want you can read my account of the incident, written and posted from the ship at the time. You might also be amused to read about our response.
Nope, Greenpeace does not do animal rights issues. Among other things, Greenpeace works to protect endangered species and habitat, but that's different. And, speaking as someone who has worked on Greenpeace ships, and paid an unwelcome visit to a few others (carrying destructively/illegally logged wood, for example) I know first hand that Greenpeace activists are extremely safety consious. We might take a few risks for ourselves when we have to, but NEVER put anyone else's safety at risk. Property damage is also against the Greenpeace ethic. Finally, Greenpeace activists are accountable to the law and take responsibility for their actions. (Although I will admit we have pretty good lawyers.)