Jump to content


**official** Environmentalists Do The Dumbest Things Thread


  • Please log in to reply
291 replies to this topic

#21 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 11 July 2009 - 01:40 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

And for the record. I think we are all totally for protecting the environment, stopping pollution, being smart about usage, game wardens controlling hunting based on animal numbers etc.In fact, I would say you can figure that we are aligned with most hunters in regards to the wildernes and what's acceptable to do to it.And no one wants pollution in our streams oceans or parks.We just don't want to sit around crying about the trees that were cut down to make baseball bats, especially since we can grow new ones.
I do not consider myself an environmentalist, but the bolded is not necessarily true. At least, there are ways of cutting down trees that make it more or less likely that you can sustain a similar environment. Forested areas have a certain ratio of old to new trees that is pretty important to the ecosystem. If you just cut down all the old big trees, recreating the forest is not as simple as planting new trees. It's certainly possible to do irreparable damage.

#22 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 11 July 2009 - 02:00 PM

View Postvbnautilus, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 3:40 PM, said:

I do not consider myself an environmentalist, but the bolded is not necessarily true. At least, there are ways of cutting down trees that make it more or less likely that you can sustain a similar environment. Forested areas have a certain ratio of old to new trees that is pretty important to the ecosystem. If you just cut down all the old big trees, recreating the forest is not as simple as planting new trees. It's certainly possible to do irreparable damage.
The biggest way to do irreparable damage to the environment is to give it to the government. Something like 90% of the superfund sites were government land; the biggest polluter in the country is the government; the number of trees on private land has increased in the last 100 years while the number of trees on government land has decreased.It seems like pure folly the way the enviro-wackos keep turning to the worst steward for answers.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#23 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 11 July 2009 - 02:04 PM

View Postvbnautilus, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 2:40 PM, said:

I do not consider myself an environmentalist, but the bolded is not necessarily true. At least, there are ways of cutting down trees that make it more or less likely that you can sustain a similar environment. Forested areas have a certain ratio of old to new trees that is pretty important to the ecosystem. If you just cut down all the old big trees, recreating the forest is not as simple as planting new trees. It's certainly possible to do irreparable damage.
It's possible to blow up the world.Some study was done not too long ago that showed that there are more trees in our forests today than there were during the civil war.Because of replanting efforts, fire fighting skills and lumber industry realizing that if they clear cut and leave, they will have to haul their trees from farther and farther locations, which drives costs up.And like I said, I am along side the people like the game warden and park rangers who make decisions on things like what should be cut, what can be cut, and what can't be cut.Or else we can go into the question of how did the first forests survive with only 100% new trees?????
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#24 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 11 July 2009 - 02:41 PM

The environment is stupid and I hate it and anybody who likes it. Really though, it's all well and good (and hilarious) to make fun of idiot hippie environmentalists who don't know the first thing about the actual science of what they're blabbing about, but protecting the environment is also extraordinarily important.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#25 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 11 July 2009 - 02:49 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 3:04 PM, said:

Or else we can go into the question of how did the first forests survive with only 100% new trees?????
Certainly they didn't just pop up from a bulldozed plot of land... the environment increased in complexity for billions of years before there were forests.. the first forests grew about 4 billion years into the earth's history. (or however that squeezes into 6,000 years)

#26 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 11 July 2009 - 02:51 PM

View Posthblask, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 3:00 PM, said:

The biggest way to do irreparable damage to the environment is to give it to the government. Something like 90% of the superfund sites were government land; the biggest polluter in the country is the government; the number of trees on private land has increased in the last 100 years while the number of trees on government land has decreased.It seems like pure folly the way the enviro-wackos keep turning to the worst steward for answers.
"Number of trees" sounds like a rather crude metric for amount of pollution done. Anyways, I wasn't proposing a solution, although it seems to me that a totally free market will exploit the land as much as is beneficial to the particular individuals profiting from it.

#27 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,354 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 11 July 2009 - 03:45 PM

View Poststrategy, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

I mean, I consider park rangers to be a pretty great example of rational environmentalism in action. park rangers HATED treadwell for misleading the public and habituating bears to humans. maybe I'm wrong.
I agree with you in your definition of environmentalism... but I don't think that the far majority of 'environmentalists' would say that Park Rangers working for the federal government are on their side.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#28 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 11 July 2009 - 05:30 PM

View Postvbnautilus, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 4:51 PM, said:

"Number of trees" sounds like a rather crude metric for amount of pollution done. Anyways, I wasn't proposing a solution, although it seems to me that a totally free market will exploit the land as much as is beneficial to the particular individuals profiting from it.
Historically, the point where people start being willing to pay for "environment" (more trees, clean air, clean water) is when their per capita income is around $4700 (that's from about 10 years ago, so it may be $6K or so by now). The point is that you don't protect the environment by doing things that harm the economy -- as is the usual solution, kicked into high gear under Obama -- but instead you protect the environment my making people rich enough to care about such things. And history is quite clear on how to make people rich.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#29 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 11 July 2009 - 05:39 PM

View Posthblask, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 6:30 PM, said:

Historically, the point where people start being willing to pay for "environment" (more trees, clean air, clean water) is when their per capita income is around $4700 (that's from about 10 years ago, so it may be $6K or so by now). The point is that you don't protect the environment by doing things that harm the economy -- as is the usual solution, kicked into high gear under Obama -- but instead you protect the environment my making people rich enough to care about such things. And history is quite clear on how to make people rich.
It's a question of priorities really. The "point at which people become willing to pay for environment" is not necessarily the point which benefits the environment most. I also don't concede that wealth correlates with environmental harmony. I'd have to see some data on that. On the surface that doesn't seem to be true across nations.

#30 nutzbuster

nutzbuster

    Point taken....

  • Members
  • 11,378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix / Motor City

Posted 11 July 2009 - 05:42 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 3:41 PM, said:

protecting the environment is also extraordinarily important.
I'm sure no will will disagree with this statement in principle.



F Cancer

#31 strategy's_touch

strategy's_touch

    has enough mobile posts to have a title

  • Members
  • 1,183 posts

Posted 11 July 2009 - 06:45 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 6:45 PM, said:

I agree with you in your definition of environmentalism... but I don't think that the far majority of 'environmentalists' would say that Park Rangers working for the federal government are on their side.
I mean, my point is, treadwell was about as ignorant and insignificant as it gets. the ONLY reason he has any notoriety is because he committed suicide via bears. watch the documentary on him... it's retarded to hold him up as an example of what's wrong with environmentalism because he represents nothing.
I got tired of logging in and out on my iPod. I made this so I could stay logged in on both my PC and this.

#32 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 11 July 2009 - 08:11 PM

View Postvbnautilus, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 7:39 PM, said:

It's a question of priorities really. The "point at which people become willing to pay for environment" is not necessarily the point which benefits the environment most. I also don't concede that wealth correlates with environmental harmony. I'd have to see some data on that. On the surface that doesn't seem to be true across nations.
If you try to force people to pay for environmental concerns before they are ready, you will get unintended consequences -- see the cap and trade discussion for an obvious example. If you tell someone "you can't have the things you care about because we want you to pay for things other people want", the result will always be worse than letting them be.It seems intuitively obvious that wealth corresponds with environmental concerns. If you are poor, you scrape and fight any way you can for food, shelter and warmth. You don't really care if it's a sustainable practice or if a few innocent animals die in the process. As you get richer, the destruction of your world starts to bug you, so you take actions to care for it. For example, I am currently letting about 5 acres of extremely arable land return to forest. I could be renting it to the local farmers or using it to grow stuff and sell, but I'd rather have a forest in my back yard.It just turns out that you can put numbers on the various concerns. When you reach income level X, you care about Y. When you reach 2X, you care about Z.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#33 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,354 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 11 July 2009 - 08:23 PM

View Poststrategy's_touch, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 9:45 PM, said:

I mean, my point is, treadwell was about as ignorant and insignificant as it gets. the ONLY reason he has any notoriety is because he committed suicide via bears. watch the documentary on him... it's retarded to hold him up as an example of what's wrong with environmentalism because he represents nothing.
But what do those EarthFirst people crying over dead trees represent? ****ing lunatics?

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#34 strategy

strategy

    Internet expert

  • Members
  • 15,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:strategy
  • Favorite Poker Game:strategy

Posted 11 July 2009 - 09:56 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 11:23 PM, said:

But what do those EarthFirst people crying over dead trees represent? ****ing lunatics?
you're asking the wrong dude. I was just pointing out that mr. troll was constructing a massive straw man.my personal opinion is that it doesn't really matter who is right or how hard their organizations campaign. inertia is going to win this battle until the coastal cities are all underwater, etc. etc. I sure hope they're wrong about it all.
QUOTE (ShakeZuma @ Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, 4:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
seriously though, with that grammar it's really like, I mean it doesn't bother me as much that she gets beat, you know?


#35 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 12 July 2009 - 02:41 AM

View Posthblask, on Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 9:11 PM, said:

It seems intuitively obvious that wealth corresponds with environmental concerns. If you are poor, you scrape and fight any way you can for food, shelter and warmth. You don't really care if it's a sustainable practice or if a few innocent animals die in the process. As you get richer, the destruction of your world starts to bug you, so you take actions to care for it. For example, I am currently letting about 5 acres of extremely arable land return to forest. I could be renting it to the local farmers or using it to grow stuff and sell, but I'd rather have a forest in my back yard.
No, that doesn't seem intuitively obvious to me at all. The people running huge chemical plants are not scraping and fighting for food. People often become wealthy at the expense of the environment, and if what you are doing is making you rich, you tend to keep doing it. Also, the more wealthy you become, the more power you have to destroy. The poor guy living in a tent is not really in a position to ruin the Mississippi. Environmental destruction is generally the result of the pursuit of individual wealth.

#36 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 12 July 2009 - 06:00 AM

View Postvbnautilus, on Sunday, July 12th, 2009, 4:41 AM, said:

No, that doesn't seem intuitively obvious to me at all. The people running huge chemical plants are not scraping and fighting for food. People often become wealthy at the expense of the environment, and if what you are doing is making you rich, you tend to keep doing it. Also, the more wealthy you become, the more power you have to destroy. The poor guy living in a tent is not really in a position to ruin the Mississippi. Environmental destruction is generally the result of the pursuit of individual wealth.
The people who run the plants live in the community too. The people who make the argument you give here act like the employees and bosses at the plant are aliens who beam in from space and then go to live comfortably on their home planet. The truth is, people care about how nice their place of residence is in direct relation to how much they can afford to care, and that includes the people who work in and run the factories.Another factor is that pollution is basically a bad choice for use of resources. It is almost always an inefficiency that will be cured over time via competition.And yes, I know all this isn't always true. There is such a thing as a negative externality, and we need to find ways to deal with it, but if the makes people poorer, it will do more harm than good. But overall, wealth = cleaner environment. The US has more trees now than when it was poor. The air is way, way cleaner than it was in the 70s. The water is cleaner. Lake Eerie used to occasionally start on fire it was so polluted. In the meantime, in Africa, people burn manure to heat their homes, leading to massive pollution and premature death. Yes, we have that big scary polluting power plant, but guess what -- we can heat and light 10,000 homes with less pollution than they can heat and sometimes light 100 homes. A lot of what enviro-people see is the effects of the efficiencies of consolidating our production. If you have one plant serving tens or hundreds of thousands of people, yes, it will produce more pollution than any particular individual. But it's obvious it won't produce as much as if each person had to generate their own heat source.Again, I won't ignore things like intentionally dumping toxic waste, but you can make those a crime without destroying the economy.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#37 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 12 July 2009 - 09:46 AM

View Posthblask, on Sunday, July 12th, 2009, 7:00 AM, said:

The people who run the plants live in the community too. The people who make the argument you give here act like the employees and bosses at the plant are aliens who beam in from space and then go to live comfortably on their home planet. The truth is, people care about how nice their place of residence is in direct relation to how much they can afford to care, and that includes the people who work in and run the factories.Another factor is that pollution is basically a bad choice for use of resources. It is almost always an inefficiency that will be cured over time via competition.
If any of this were true, there would not be pollution.

#38 Zealous Donkey

Zealous Donkey

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri, USA
  • Interests:Poker, Reading, Sports
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Holdem

Posted 12 July 2009 - 10:58 AM

View Poststrategy, on Sunday, July 12th, 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

you're asking the wrong dude. I was just pointing out that mr. troll was constructing a massive straw man.my personal opinion is that it doesn't really matter who is right or how hard their organizations campaign. inertia is going to win this battle until the coastal cities are all underwater, etc. etc. I sure hope they're wrong about it all.
You'll be happy to know that they are wrong. If they were right the coastal cities would have been under water in the early 1990s as they predicted.
"Never play pool with a guy that brings his own stick. And Never, Ever play pool with a guy that brings his own table." ~Hoyt Axton

#39 Sal Paradise

Sal Paradise

    shot down in a blaze of glory

  • Members
  • 6,833 posts
  • Location:Sausalito
  • Favorite Poker Game:cuddling

Posted 12 July 2009 - 12:42 PM

in honor of this thread I am now watching deliverance.
QUOTE (Tactical Bear @ Monday, June 15th, 2009, 9:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anybody who dies of Swine Flu is just a faggot.

#40 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 12 July 2009 - 01:58 PM

View Postvbnautilus, on Sunday, July 12th, 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

If any of this were true, there would not be pollution.
Really? Do you create zero pollution in your own life? Of do you not care about the environment? You seem to think the two are mutally exclusive.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users