Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: JohnKoerner on August 10, 2010, 09:37:35 am

Title: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 10, 2010, 09:37:35 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/t...y_b_662971.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/the-crime-of-the-century_b_662971.html)

The unprecedented disaster caused by the BP oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon Mississippi Canyon 252 site continues to expand even as National Incident Commander Thad Allen and BP assert that the situation is improving, the blown-out source capped and holding steady, the situation well in hand and cleanup operations are being scaled back. The New York Times declared on the front page this past week that the oil was disolving more rapidly than anticipated. Time magazine reported that environmental anti-advocate Rush Limbaugh had a point when he said the spill was a "leak". Thad Allen pointed out in a press conference that boats are still skimming on the surface, a futile gesture when the dispersant Corexit is being used to break down oil on the surface. As the oil is broken down, it mixes with the dispersant and flows under or over any booming operations.

To judge from most media coverage, the beaches are open, the fishing restrictions being lifted and the Gulf resorts open for business in a healthy, safe environment. We, along with Pierre LeBlanc, spent the last few weeks along the Gulf coast from Louisiana to Florida, and the reality is distinctly different. The coastal communities of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida have been inundated by the oil and toxic dispersant Corexit 9500, and the entire region is contaminated. The once pristine white beaches that have been subject to intense cleaning operations now contain the oil/dispersant contamination to an unknown depth. The economic impacts potentially exceed even the devastation of a major hurricane like Katrina, the adverse impacts on health and welfare of human populations are increasing every minute of every day and the long-term effects are potentially life threatening.

Over the Gulf from the Source in to shore there is virtually no sign of life anywhere in the vast areas covered by the dispersed oil and Corexit. This in a region previously abundant with life above and below the ocean's surface in all its diversity. For months now, scientists and environmental organizations have been asking where all the animals are. The reported numbers of marine animals lost from BP fall far short of the observed loss. The water has a heavy appearance and the slightly iridescent greenish yellow color that extends as far as the eye can see.


(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-08-04-oil1.jpg)
Wake of vessel near the Source through the toxic dispersant Corexit

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-08-04-oil2.jpg)
Corexit and a thin line of orangish crude dispersing on the surface

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-08-04-oil3.jpg)
The ocean covered in Corexit is green, and a line of crude being dispersed


On two, unrestricted day-long flights, on July 22nd and 23rd, we were fortunate enough to be on with official clearance. We saw a total of four distressed dolphins and three schools of rays on the surface. As the bottom of the ocean is covered with crude and only the oil on the surface broken up by dispersant, the rays are forced up to the surface in a futile attempt to find food and oxygen. Birds are scarce where one would usually find thousands upon thousands. The Gulf of Mexico from the Source into the shore is a giant kill zone.


(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-08-04-oil4.jpg)
Rays near the Source


In May, Mother Nature Network blogger Karl Burkart received a tip from an anonymous fisherman-turned-BP contractor in the form of a distressed text message, describing a near-apocalyptic sight near the location of the sunken Deepwater Horizon -- fish, dolphins, rays, squid, whales, and thousands of birds -- "as far as the eye can see," dead and dying. According to his statement, which was later confirmed by another report from an individual working in the Gulf, whale carcasses were being shipped to a highly guarded location where they were processed for disposal.

CitizenGlobal Gulf News Desk received photos that matched the report and are being published on Karl's blog today. Local fisherman in Alabama report sighting tremendous numbers of dolphins, sharks, and fish moving in towards shore as the initial waves of oil and dispersant approached in June. Many third- and fourth-generation fisherman declared emphatically that they had never seen or heard of any similar event in the past. Scores of animals were fleeing the leading edge of toxic dispersant mixed with oil. Those not either caught in the toxic mixture and killed out at sea, or fortunate enough to be out in safe water beyond the Source, died as the water closed in, and they were left no safe harbor. The numbers of birds, fish, turtles, and mammals killed by the use of Corexit will never be known as the evidence strongly suggests that BP worked with the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, private security contractors, and local law enforcement, all of which cooperated to conceal the operations disposing of the animals from the media and the public.

The majority of the disposal operations were carried out under cover of darkness. The areas along the beaches and coastal Islands where the dead animals were collected were closed off by the U.S. Coast Guard. On shore, private contractors and local law enforcement officials kept off limits the areas where the remains of the dead animals were dumped, mainly at the Magnolia Springs landfill by Waste Management where armed guards controlled access. The nearby weigh station where the Waste Management trucks passed through with their cargoes was also restricted by at least one sheriff's deputies in a patrol car, 24/7.


(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-08-04-oil5.jpg)
Magnolia landfill during initial cleanup, courtesy of Press-Register, Connie Baggett


Robyn Hill, who was Beach Ambassador for the City of Gulf Shores until she became so ill she collapsed on the job one morning, was at a residential condominium property adjacent to the Gulf Shores beach when she smelled an overwhelming stench. She went to see where the odor was coming from and witnessed two contract workers dumping plastic bags full of dead birds and fish in a residential Waste Management dumpster, which was then protected by a security guard. Within five minutes, a Waste Management collection truck emptied the contents and the guard departed.


(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-07-29-dumpster.jpg)
Photo by Robyn Hill


The oceans are empty, the skies tinged yellow by evaporating oil and toxic dispersant devoid of birds, dogs mysteriously have no fleas, and in an area usually besieged by mosquitoes, there is little need for repellent, and the usual trucks spraying are nowhere to be seen.

Shell Beach, in Hopedale, Louisiana, was one of the sites where carcasses of sperm whales were suspected of being destroyed. The operational end of the island was closed to unauthorized personnel and the airspace closed. The U.S. Coast Guard closed off all access from the Gulf. This picture shows the area as it was prepped to receive what were suspected to be whale carcasses for disposal.


(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-08-04-oil7.jpg)


Riki Ott, PhD, has been in the region for the past three months. A veteran of the Exxon Valdez spill and renowned marine toxicologist, Ott has documented numerous accounts of the devastating results from BP and the government's use of Corexit in the gulf. We spoke at length last week:

JC: There has been a great deal of discussion about the disappearance of the animals and the life in the ocean which seem to have vanished since this incident has occurred. What do you know about this?

RO: Well I have been down in the Gulf since May 3rd. It's pretty consistent what I have heard. First I heard from the offshore workers and the boat captains that were coming in and they would see windrows of dead things piled up on the barrier islands; turtles and birds and dolphins... whales...
JC: Whales?

RO: And whales. There would be stories from boat captains of offshore, we started calling death gyres, where the rips all the different currents sweep the oceans surface, that would be the collection points for hundreds of dolphins and sea turtles and birds and even whales floating. So we got four different times latitudes/longitude coordinates where (this was happening) but by the time we got to these lat/longs which is always a couple of days later there was nothing there. There was boom put around these areas to collect the animals and we know this happened at Exxon Valdez too. The rips are where the dead things collect. We also know from Exxon Valdez that only 1% in our case of the carcasses that floated off to sea actually made landfall in the Gulf of Alaska. I don't believe there have been any carcass drift studies down here that would give us some indication that when something does wash up on the beach what percentage it is of the whole. But we know that offshore there was an attempt by BP and the government to keep the animals from coming onshore in great numbers. The excuse was this was a health problem -- we don't want to create a health hazard. That would only be a good excuse if they kept tallies of all the numbers because all the numbers - all the animals - are evidence for federal court. We the people own these animals and they become evidence for damages to charge for BP. In Exxon Valdez the carcasses were kept under triple lock and key security until the natural resource damage assessment study was completed and that was 2 1/2 years after the spill. Then all the animals were burned but not until then.
So people offshore were reporting this first and then carcasses started making it onshore. Then I started hearing from people in Alabama a lot and the western half of Florida - a little bit in Mississippi - but mostly what was going on then there was an attempt to keep people off the beaches, cameras off the beaches. I was literally flying in a plane and the FAA boundary changed. It was offshore first with the barrier islands and all of a sudden it just hopped right to shore to Alabama that's where we were flying over and the pilot was just like - he couldn't believe it - he was like look at that and I didn't know what he was looking but then he points at the little red line which had all of sudden grown and he just looked at me and said the only reason that they have done this is so people can't see what is going on. And what that little red line meant was no cameras on shore and three days later the oil came onshore and the carcasses came onshore into Alabama.


JC: That immediately preceded the first wave coming onshore?

RO: Pretty much. That preceded the first wave. It was June 2nd when the line changed and the FAA boundaries increased. Then people would -- I mean you walk beaches here at night it's hot so people walk beaches -- and they would see carcasses like sea turtles, a bird, a little baby dolphin, and immediately they would go over to it and immediately people would approach them, don't touch that if you touch it you will be arrested and within fifteen minutes there would be a white unmarked van that would just come out of nowhere and in would go the carcass and off it would go.
They were white unmarked vans at first. We've since heard many other stories from truckers who are trucking carcasses in refrigerated vans to Mexico. Carcasses are just not showing up where they need to which is as body counts for essentially this war on the gulf.

JC: It sounds like the federal government and agencies that have been involved in this one way or another are working on behalf of BP and not the American people.

RO: What's going on on the beaches where people can at least get glimpses of what's happening -- I mean I've talked to people who have seen boats coming in towing dolphin carcasses and the boats have jockeyed to try to prevent the person with the camera from getting a picture. I've had people tell me they were walking the beach actually trying to deploy boom but along comes a BP rep and the Coast Guard in a boat, and the Coast Guard guy yells at the people to stop deploying -- particularly if it was alternative boom -- and then he goes away and comes back a few minutes later without the BP person and apologizes for behaving that way but he had to because there was a BP person on board.
JC: A Coast Guard official?

RO: A Coast Guard official apologized for his behavior because he had to a since BP person was on board. So it's pretty clear to the American, the people in the Gulf, that somehow it's turned not into our country anymore. That's the question. People are just stunned. We thought this was America. We didn't think we had to know exactly what our rights were, we just though we all lived them. Suddenly they're finding that unless they can site chapter and verse they are getting intimidated and backing down from these encounters with BP and/or the Coast Guard.
Drew Wheelan, with the American Birding Association, was on Grand Isle on the first of June. Drew said:

There were definitely dead birds washing up on the beach at that point. General contractors, not Fish and Wildlife officials, I contacted them and they said they were not conducting operations at that time. These contractors were cruising the high tide. On at least three occasions I saw these gators, 4-seat ATVs, going along the beach with hand-held spotlights looking for dead animals in the middle of the night. When I spoke with Felix Lopez at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, he told me they knew they were disappearing birds.


(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-08-01-IMG_7976.jpg)
Dead Northern Gannet, reported but uncollected. Photo by Drew Wheelan


(Karen Harvey is a local who regularly walks the beaches along the Alabama Gulf shore.)

JC: In the course of walking the beaches since this incident happened, how many dead animals, birds did you find?

KH: Before they got the hazmat crews trained and before official people showed up with their vans I was finding -- within a seven-mile stretch -- and that's not a very long beach area, I was finding at least two turtles a day, mostly Ridleys. There was one logger head that was very large. My daughter's friends would call me and say, Miss Karen there's a turtle on the beach, you should come down and take a picture. People were aware they were dying, but we were being told that they were possibly hit by a fishing boat or pulled up with fish from the fishing boats but after the fishing boats were completely stopped the turtles were still on the beach. Now the beach is immaculate, no crabs, no birds -- nothing.
JC: Why do you think that is?

KH: Dispersant. It's the dispersant. And also when you clean a beach the way they clean our beach with -- I mean our beach never looked this pristine as far as junk and so forth -- when you clean a beach like that, you take away all the things that birds eat, and we did have some big fish kill areas where bunches of little tiny fish and so forth would wash up. And it makes you wonder.
JC: When was that?

KH: The last one as probably about a month ago.
JC: When you say a lot, quantify that.

KH: Thousands of little tiny fish, but they were cleaning the beach so they just cleaned the beach up, the hazmat workers.
 

The reason BP has gone to such great lengths to hide the devastation caused by the irresponsible drilling operations and blow out at Mississippi Canyon 252 is financial. Every death that results from the oil spill has a cash value, whether animal or human. Images of dead animals are difficult to spin in the media, and they resonate across all demographics. BP also has a strong interest in maintaining a business-as-usual model for the beach resort communities along the Gulf Coast that have been economically devastated and lost the majority of their annual revenue during the summer season of 2010. The only sharks circling the Gulf waters now are based on land.




.
Title: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 10, 2010, 09:40:18 am
Nothing but stupidity and evil ...


My comments are on my new Blog (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Blog)


Just trying to keep people aware ... it's so easy to go back to "business as usual" ... just like the well-fed cattle we're groomed to be ...




.
Title: Crime of the Century
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on August 10, 2010, 10:19:51 am
It's very sad. Thanks for posting this, Jack.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Mark Anderson on August 11, 2010, 12:00:38 am
Thanks for the informative report.

I may lead a sheltered life up here in Minnesota, but this is the first real reportage I have seen of the potential/probable devastation to bird, mammal, and sea life in the dispersant area. I'm not surprised that BP and some sort of coalition of willing allies, both inside and outside of government, are attempting a vast cover up, and unfortunately I'm also not greatly surprised that the cover up seems to be fairly effective. These days if you can control the news for the first two weeks after a major disaster or event, often that is sufficient for that particular story to be replaced by the next big disaster to hit the major media outlets.

Any ideas for how to most effectively raise awareness of this debacle?

Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Provokot on August 11, 2010, 03:21:23 am
What no one likes to mention is that a large portion of America's crude oil comes from the Niger Delta in Africa, where, year after year after year American  companies such as Exxon Mobil and other multinationals, such as Shell have caused massive pollution on a scale that is said to dwarf the "BP" oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

As someone who is very dedicated to the protection of the environment, I would like to see America and other countries' companies responsible paying for the clean-up of the near dead waters of the Niger Delta. I would also like to ask those countries what they intend to do to compensate the people of that area who have gained almost no benefit whatsoever from living in such a potentially wealthy area. I would also like to ask why those local voices such as the Late Ken Saro Wiwa ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa)  have been so brutally silenced when complaining about the corruption practiced by Nigeria's politicians and businessmen in relation to their dealings with foreign oil companies.

The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster is just the yellow head on the suppurating boil that is the oil industry. Whilst sympathising with the individuals who have suffered as a result of the Gulf oil spill, I find America's wailing and gnashing of teeth to be massively hypocritical.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8744393.stm

http://www.platformlondon.org/carbonweb/showitem.asp?article=73&parent=7&link=Y&gp=3

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 11, 2010, 07:44:56 am
Thanks for the informative report.
I may lead a sheltered life up here in Minnesota, but this is the first real reportage I have seen of the potential/probable devastation to bird, mammal, and sea life in the dispersant area. I'm not surprised that BP and some sort of coalition of willing allies, both inside and outside of government, are attempting a vast cover up, and unfortunately I'm also not greatly surprised that the cover up seems to be fairly effective. These days if you can control the news for the first two weeks after a major disaster or event, often that is sufficient for that particular story to be replaced by the next big disaster to hit the major media outlets.
Any ideas for how to most effectively raise awareness of this debacle?


I think the most effective way to raise awareness is by not forgetting in your own mind and heart, and then by taking it to the next level by reminding other people. The only way to effect change is to have this sense of outrage spread, and have it reflected in the way you vote. By voting only for representatives who are likewise concerned with the environment may we take vicarious action where it counts. This is why I made this post, as I know thousands of people come here to this site and I want them to see this. You are welcome to cross-post it to any other forums you visit if you want. Facebook is becoming another powerful tool, actually, and that is another place to post this link and this message. It allows you to tell a friend, who tells two friends, who tell four friends, etc., etc.

I am glad that you feel motivated to doing something yourself. There are a lot of people getting really tired of this kind of thing. The world is getting tired of it too. There are a lot of ways to be proactive and have your voice heard, and I am sure you can think of ways too that I haven't thought of or mentioned. There are environmental documentaries like The 11th Hour (http://www.amazon.com/11th-Hour-Leonardo-DiCaprio/dp/B00005JPXA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1254331120&sr=1-1) that you can show your friends and family to get them thinking about this imminent sense of peril too.

We all have busy lives, but sitting around doing nothing isn't an option anymore. I think we all have to do our part, within whatever capabilities we have.

Thanks,

Jack
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 11, 2010, 08:23:35 am
What no one likes to mention is that a large portion of America's crude oil comes from the Niger Delta in Africa, where, year after year after year American  companies such as Exxon Mobil and other multinationals, such as Shell have caused massive pollution on a scale that is said to dwarf the "BP" oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

I really don't wish to turn this into a "one country versus another" debate. I believe the effort to compare the magnitude of spills is likewise unproductive and divisive. I also don't think it matters whether the offending companies are British, American, or multinational ... so much as the fact the damage is being done is what matters most. Are we, who actually care about the environment, to be left quibbling amongst ourselves at such minutia ... or does true effectiveness at stopping this lie in decrying the polluting behavior regardless of which company (or which country) is causing it? I certainly believe the latter to be the wiser perspective and course of action.




As someone who is very dedicated to the protection of the environment, I would like to see America and other countries' companies responsible paying for the clean-up of the near dead waters of the Niger Delta. I would also like to ask those countries what they intend to do to compensate the people of that area who have gained almost no benefit whatsoever from living in such a potentially wealthy area. I would also like to ask why those local voices such as the Late Ken Saro Wiwa ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa)  have been so brutally silenced when complaining about the corruption practiced by Nigeria's politicians and businessmen in relation to their dealings with foreign oil companies.

Again, your attempt to blame "other countries" is divisive IMO. I think it is much more effective to discuss the offending companies and leave which "country" they're from out of the discussion. I applaud you for raising my awareness through the story of Ken Saro Wiwa, as I have never heard of him or of his plight. That is yet another story of evil and corruption from the oil companies which falls right in line with the story I originally posted. As I said in my blog (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Blog), these oil companies are collective examples of evil, the phsychology of which I also discuss. Essentially, a wanton disregard for the rights and sanctity of other beings is the primary manifestation of evil, with the attempt to "cover-up" one's actions by any means necessary being the secondary manifestation of evil behavior. The story of Ken Saro Wiwa's unjust framing and public execution, funded by the oil companies, serves as a paradigm for evil.




The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster is just the yellow head on the suppurating boil that is the oil industry. Whilst sympathising with the individuals who have suffered as a result of the Gulf oil spill, I find America's wailing and gnashing of teeth to be massively hypocritical.

Again, your America-versus-the-world manner of discussion isn't very productive. As an American, I can assure you I do not want to see either pollution or injustice occur anywhere in the world. I can likewise assure you that I would be every bit as outraged had BP been an American company as I am that it happened to be a British company. Which country BP hails from isn't the issue. That the damage happened and an entire regional ecosystem has been devastated is the issue. I think you and I would be better served debating on the same side, as environmentalists, than we would quibbling over "which country" any offending companies might hail from. To my way of thinking, it doesn't matter what country any company hails from, the point is ALL companies need to be held to some standard and code of ethics. Quite frankly, given that there are alternative means of fuel and that the technology now exists to be rid of fossil fuels altogether, THAT goal (being rid of oil) should be each and every country's #1 priority, which is to free itself from the dependency on this world-destroying product and instead opt for cleaner and less damaging methods. Toward this end, I urge you to read the book Freedom From Oil (http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Oil-President-United-Addiction/dp/0071489061), by David Sandalow, for we are in an age of technology where we CAN be completely free of oil, which is what every truly wise and good government would be striving for.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8744393.stm
http://www.platformlondon.org/carbonweb/showitem.asp?article=73&parent=7&link=Y&gp=3
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta

Thank you very much for providing these links. I will be sure to pass them on as best as I can.

Jack




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on August 11, 2010, 09:48:10 am
A million people killed in Darfur and this is the crime of the century?

Perspective people, perspective.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 11, 2010, 10:08:30 am
A million people killed in Darfur and this is the crime of the century?
Perspective people, perspective.


Yes, our world is more important than the people in it. That is the part we stupid human beings have to get straight.

The fact is, without any people, the world would still sustain all other life forms. Without the world, however, all life forms (including people) cease to exist.

So, yes, I agree with you, let us do keep things in perspective. Let us realize that man (and all his goals, efforts, and money) is NOT the most important thing in this world ... it's the life-sustaining world itself that is most important.

Jack




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: RSL on August 11, 2010, 10:44:24 am
Easy gang, remember: time heals all wounds and wounds all heels. The gulf will recover and BP will pay a dear price for its negligence.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: HiltonP on August 11, 2010, 11:55:28 am
I really don't wish to turn this into a "one country versus another" debate . . .

Again, your attempt to blame "other countries" is divisive IMO . . .

Again, your America-versus-the-world manner of discussion isn't very productive . . .

As an American, I can assure you I do not want to see either pollution or injustice occur anywhere in the world . . .
Then where have you been for the last 20+ years Jack while big oil has been turning the Niger Delta into a cesspit?
You called this incident the crime of the century. Some research will reveal that it is not even a blip on the radar.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 11, 2010, 12:03:43 pm
Easy gang, remember: time heals all wounds and wounds all heels. The gulf will recover and BP will pay a dear price for its negligence.


I know that saying, as it's a popular catch-phrase, but unfortunately time does not heal all wounds.

In the rainforests, for example, when they get mowed down completely and are left to "grow back" ... they do NOT grow back. Instead, they are replaced with a desert. In another example, if I unloaded a full clip of .40-cal bullets in you, "time" wouldn't heal your wounds much, would it? A thousand other examples could be made.

So, thanks for your thoughts, but a one-liner catch phrase is an insufficient dismissal of what is in fact a very grave problem facing our world. It goes beyond the BP spill; it is a pandemic problem globally, and that is the continual destruction of our world, which itself is a manifestation of unbridled human overpopulation.

We have simply got to find sustainable, non-polluting ways to burn energy ... and we have got to stop reproducing exponentially ... rather than continuously ruining our world by oil drilling and mowing-down it's unspoiled resources to make room for more consumers. Time will NOT heal all of the damage done to this world, and at some point our time for "making things right" will have run out.

Jask
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 11, 2010, 12:11:19 pm
Then where have you been for the last 20+ years Jack while big oil has been turning the Niger Delta into a cesspit?
You called this incident the crime of the century. Some research will reveal that it is not even a blip on the radar.

Like many people, I have been going along "business as usual" ... until such an event struck close to home. The truth is, where was anyone before they decided to take action? At some point, everyone needs to wake up. That anyone did not wake up and "act sooner" to address some real problems is a fool's way to debate the severity of this subject. Saying that this spill isn't even a blip on the radar is likewise sophomoric.

The BP oil spill was/is a catastrophe, plain and simple. That there have been other environmental catastrophes as big or bigger as the BP catastrophe shouldn't undermine the message I am trying to spread; it should only reinforce the message. Reducing these problems to one-liners (or 3-liners) on a message board is non-thinking way to address these problems.

I don't believe any honest person can call any of these listed events "minor" ... and when added together they form a major and continuous pandemic threat to the future.

I hope we all can agree on that,

Jack
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on August 11, 2010, 12:21:52 pm

Yes, our world is more important than the people in it. That is the part we stupid human beings have to get straight.

The fact is, without any people, the world would still sustain all other life forms. Without the world, however, all life forms (including people) cease to exist.

So, yes, I agree with you, let us do keep things in perspective. Let us realize that man (and all his goals, efforts, and money) is NOT the most important thing in this world ... it's the life-sustaining world itself that is most important.

Jack




.

What a sick individual.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on August 11, 2010, 12:24:04 pm
Disagreements that lead to personal attacks will close the topic.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 11, 2010, 12:28:32 pm
Disagreements that lead to personal attacks will close the topic.


Hi Chris;

I don't think this topic should be closed, perhaps just the perpetrator's post removed.

I think the future of our world and environment is a worthy topic to discuss, but it is an emotional topic. Ben's comments are fine with me, they only show the fact he has no rebuttal to what I said and is therefore reduced to an emotional response. But hey, if Ben believes people are more important than the world which allows them to live, then he is entitled to his opinion.

I do agree that personal attacks are not necessary, but I am a big boy and can handle it 8)

Thanks,

Jack
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Provokot on August 11, 2010, 12:36:10 pm
Jack, my point is, the fuss and the outrage that media-rich America (or lets just say developed countries) can make, that the whole world hears, when an environmental disaster happens on their own doorstep needs to be balanced with equal fuss and outrage when they (and other countries) create or participate in the creation of a much, much worse disaster in a poorer, less media-rich country, which doesn't have the voice to scream its pain to the world. The loser is still the environment. And the people who depend on that environment.

The Gulf of Mexico disaster is the tip of the iceberg.  America's powerful mainstream media can continue to rage against BP (hell everyone needs a named villain), but it must equally rage against ALL oil companies for the horror they have created in the Niger delta. To stay silent is a far greater crime than the Crime of the Century you referred to.

If I came across as divisive, I'm sorry, but there IS an ugly truth that many in the developed world either don't know about, or don't want to hear about: The Gulf of Mexico disaster is a mere drop in the ocean (no pun intended) in the grand scheme of putting cheap fuel in gas-guzzling, Co2 belching cars, and filling our insatiable appetites for plastics and other oil-derived compounds. (I will buy Freedom From Oil, by David Sandalow as you recommended. Thanks :-))

As someone who was born and raised in Africa and who has seen first-hand the obscene greed, bribery, corruption and corporate malpractices by multinationals that go hand in glove with mineral exploitation in Africa, I can say confidently and comfortably that the developed world owes Africa, its people and environment much, much more than it could ever possibly repay.

Finally, Jack, given some of the replies to this topic, I will say thank you for raising this debate, and do lets keep on talking like grown-ups!

Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on August 11, 2010, 12:46:57 pm

Hi Chris;

I don't think this topic should be closed, perhaps just the perpetrator's post removed.

I think the future of our world and environment is a worthy topic to discuss, but it is an emotional topic. Ben's comments are fine with me, they only show the fact he has no rebuttal to what I said and is therefore reduced to an emotional response. But hey, if Ben believes people are more important than the world which allows them to live, then he is entitled to his opinion.

I do agree that personal attacks are not necessary, but I am a big boy and can handle it 8)

Thanks,

Jack

I believe that when an individual worships nature to the extent that repairable damage to inanimate objects is of more concern than the death of a million individuals that they have betrayed their species entirely.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 11, 2010, 12:47:34 pm
What a sick individual.

Hi Ben;

Could you please elaborate on why you feel I am a sick individual for wanting to raise awareness about the global deforestation and sterilization of our world?

You seem to be a man of few words. Does this mean you are therefore a man with few thoughts, or are you just pressed for time? You wrote two lines last visit and just one line this visit.

I would like to understand your perspective on why you place "people" on a pedestal higher in importance than the world which allows them (nay, all of life itself) to exist. I would be happy to debate this subject, civilly and intelligently, with you anytime you are emotionally and intellectually ready to do so.

Thanks for your time,

Jack


EDIT:
I believe that when an individual worships nature to the extent that repairable damage to inanimate objects is of more concern than the death of a million individuals that they have betrayed their species entirely.

You squeezed-out one more line as I was typing. Thank you for the effort. Could you please explain why you think man is more important than the "nature" which allows him to survive? Also, you forgot to mention the hundreds of millions of life other forms that died out in the gulf. Thanks.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 11, 2010, 01:04:48 pm
Jack, my point is, the fuss and the outrage that media-rich America (or lets just say developed countries) can make, that the whole world hears, when an environmental disaster happens on their own doorstep needs to be balanced with equal fuss and outrage when they (and other countries) create or participate in the creation of a much, much worse disaster in a poorer, less media-rich country, which doesn't have the voice to scream its pain to the world. The loser is still the environment. And the people who depend on that environment.

The Gulf of Mexico disaster is the tip of the iceberg.  America's powerful mainstream media can continue to rage against BP (hell everyone needs a named villain), but it must equally rage against ALL oil companies for the horror they have created in the Niger delta. To stay silent is a far greater crime than the Crime of the Century you referred to.

If I came across as divisive, I'm sorry, but there IS an ugly truth that many in the developed world either don't know about, or don't want to hear about: The Gulf of Mexico disaster is a mere drop in the ocean (no pun intended) in the grand scheme of putting cheap fuel in gas-guzzling, Co2 belching cars, and filling our insatiable appetites for plastics and other oil-derived compounds. (I will buy Freedom From Oil, by David Sandalow as you recommended. Thanks :-))

As someone who was born and raised in Africa and who has seen first-hand the obscene greed, bribery, corruption and corporate malpractices by multinationals that go hand in glove with mineral exploitation in Africa, I can say confidently and comfortably that the developed world owes Africa, its people and environment much, much more than it could ever possibly repay.

Finally, Jack, given some of the replies to this topic, I will say thank you for raising this debate, and do lets keep on talking like grown-ups!




Great post and I do understand how you'd have bad feelings with your background, but please be assured that my sentiments are not for "America only," but of the world at large. As I mentioned previously, sometimes it takes events such as these to happen close to home to "wake us up." This does not mean I feel African concerns are of less importance than American; it only means I was completely oblivious to those realities. Had I experienced what you have seen, I am sure I would feel as you do.

By the way, my title "Crime of the Century" was in fact the title of the newspaper article. I sure didn't mean to imply that other tragedies to other areas are somehow less important.

Thanks again for your contributions, and cheers from across the globe!

Jack
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on August 11, 2010, 01:28:18 pm
Hi Ben;

Could you please elaborate on why you feel I am a sick individual for wanting to raise awareness about the global deforestation and sterilization of our world?

You seem to be a man of few words. Does this mean you are therefore a man with few thoughts, or are you just pressed for time? You wrote two lines last visit and just one line this visit.

I would like to understand your perspective on why you place "people" on a pedistal higher in importance than the world which allows them (nay, all of life itself) to exist. I would be happy to debate this subject, civilly and intelligently, with you anytime you are emotionally and intellectually ready to do so.

Thanks for your time,

Jack


EDIT:
You squeezed-out one more line as I was typing. Thank you for the effort. Could you please explain why you think man is more important than the "nature" which allows him to survive?

I have no problem with protecting nature inasmuch as it is needed for human survival or pleasure. Putting the survival of a different entity above that of your own species is extremely parasitical. To do so for non selfish reasons (for the species) is incredibly illogical.

Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Provokot on August 11, 2010, 01:54:14 pm
Ben, I'm not sure I get you here... It is entirely logical that we protect our environment in order to protect our species. We are by nature "parasites" in that we feed off the earth. But that doesn't make us immoral. Nor does caring for the organism (earth) that feeds us.  If anything it is immoral to do nothing about environmental degradation, just as it is immoral to do nothing about the people in Darfur etc.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 11, 2010, 02:21:41 pm
I have no problem with protecting nature inasmuch as it is needed for human survival or pleasure. Putting the survival of a different entity above that of your own species is extremely parasitical. To do so for non selfish reasons (for the species) is incredibly illogical.


Well, Ben, as someone who holds a degree in philosophy, where one of the major disciplines is in fact logic, let me suggest that there is nothing "logical" about your belief system at all; it is only emotional and egocentric. The entire premise that nature and animals are here to "serve" man is ludicrous. I am well aware of the religious nature of this incredibly myopic and obtuse perspective, and I don't really want to get into religion here either. So let us deal with the facts and with the subject of parasitism.

Regarding survival and loyalty, my loyalty is to the truth, and the truth about the declining quality of our world (unfortunately) is against mankind and no other life form. The facts show that mankind defies natural laws, is thus an abomination of nature, consumes resources far beyond what he needs, desecrates and kills for reasons that are not necessary, is increasing in number exponentially (while all other life forms are dwindling in number) ... and as a result mankind is ruining the world on which he (along with all other life forms) exists.

What is "illogical" is to believe that we as a species are intrinsically valuable to the world. Any person, or any group, is valuable only insofar as they contribute to the welfare of our world and that they help keep the balance of nature. By contrast, any individual or group who destroys this world, who kills other beings indiscriminately and en masse ... to the point where nature becomes terribly imbalanced or destroyed ... is a dangerous liability, not a valuable asset. And unfortunately, only man is guilty of being such a dangerous liability to the world.

The fact is we are ALL parasites of Planet Earth. You, me, and every organism on the face of this planet does nothing but suck the ^!^ of Mother Nature. To deny this reality is to be insane. Or, at the very least, clueless. Every breath we take, every drop of water we drink, and every scrap of nourishment we consume comes from this earth. And yet we continue to grow as a species and defile everything around us which gives us life. You want to talk about "illogical," the idea that we can continue to grow exponentially in number, that we can continually spread and consume resources, and the idea that this will not (ultimately) have catastrophic consequenses is what is "illogical."

You seem to think that mankind has "the right" to do whatever he wants to do to this planet, but the intelligent man also recognizes the responsibility to take care of that which provides him sustenance. (I suggest a quick skimming of "The Goose and the Golden Egg" fable ...) It is precisely this primitive "we have the right to do as we please, without regard for this world and other life forms" mindset that has created these problems. Having no regard for life and nature is evil, and (ultimately) this narcissistic and evil mentality will cause our own undoing.

By the way, Ben, the difference between a parasite and a parasitoid is that a parasite lives in a balance with its host ... while a parasitoid actually kills its host. Parasitoids can only exist if they have another host to move onto ... so if there were a whole bunch of other "Earths" floating around, that might be okay ... but as far as I know there is only ONE Planet Earth, and so taking care of it to the best of our ability is, in point of fact, essential to our survival as a species.

Thus "logic" would then hold that those people and groups who wantonly destroy our world are the ones who truly don't have our long term "survival as a species" in mind ...

Jack
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 14, 2010, 08:09:45 am
Just wanted to add that we're only 10 years into this century, plenty of time left for all kinds of repulsive behaviour. It might be a little early to label the Gulf oil spill as the Crime of the Century, even if you do think it's more deserving that the competition so far.



Easy gang, remember: time heals all wounds and wounds all heels. The gulf will recover and BP will pay a dear price for its negligence.

As for time healing all wounds, that may be true, though it can be a callous thing to say depending on the context and timing. The families of the 11 guys who died in the explosion might not appreciate the thought. Imagine if someone said it of the World Trade Center destruction. There's an old Steve Goodman song, "Somebody Else's Troubles" with the refrain, "It ain't hard to get along with somebody else's troubles, and they don't make you lose any sleep at night", it's a good tune.

Of course, the Gulf will recover. Mother Nature will eventually absorb all that we can throw at her, no question. But her way of dealing with it might be to wipe us out. She's relegated millions of species already to the extinction heap when they failed to adapt to changing conditions. It's silly to assume we're immune.

Whether and how much BP will pay is an open question, and an important one. I am not an expert but I believe that the idea of limited liability was a way to protect shareholders from personal responsibility from corporate malfeasance. This was a way to encourage investment, and it works, but it was never other than a balancing act. What do we do when the potential harm from an act is greater than the ability of the causing agent to repair or repay? It's not the least bit clear. What does it mean that a "corporation" will suffer? Who suffers, exactly. The shareholders who didn't get out in time, maybe. I am pretty sure that the executives who laid the groundwork for the possible negligent behaviour won't suffer much, history shows that. They may burn a scapegoat at the stake, but the underlying reasons for behaving this way remain. In the end, it's citizens who will pay, the ones on the coast and the taxpayers who pay for the cleanup crews. Our culture does a good job of allowing corporations to externalize the things they don't want to pay for. Just look at the financial sector. I laughed out loud when I heard some public figure say that oil is a natural substance and that there is no long-term danger from it (was it Rush Limbaugh, can't remember) being in the environment. Ok, I thought, would you store some in YOUR backyard then?
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Joe Behar on August 14, 2010, 10:00:39 am

Regarding survival and loyalty, my loyalty is to the truth, and the truth about the declining quality of our world (unfortunately) is against mankind and no other life form. The facts show that mankind defies natural laws, is thus an abomination of nature, consumes resources far beyond what he needs, desecrates and kills for reasons that are not necessary, is increasing in number exponentially (while all other life forms are dwindling in number) ... and as a result mankind is ruining the world on which he (along with all other life forms) exists.

Jack

Jack,

Let me start off by saying that I do not have any formal education in philosophy.

What you say above is absolutely true. We cannot dispute those facts. Through the ages, people have said those very things.

I would suggest that our seeming route to self destruction has nothing to do with truth and rights. To coin a crude, old phrase, we do it for the same reason dogs lick themselves...because we can.

Now I'd like to ask a question, and I mean this in a completely non combative or confrontational way.

Are you willing to give up your life so that a different species can survive?

Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: RSL on August 14, 2010, 10:54:18 am
As for time healing all wounds, that may be true, though it can be a callous thing to say depending on the context and timing. The families of the 11 guys who died in the explosion might not appreciate the thought. Imagine if someone said it of the World Trade Center destruction.

Robert, It seems to me that to see moral equivalence between an accident and a mass murder is putting yourself pretty far out on a limb. As far as the title of this thread is concerned, the gulf blowout wasn't a "crime," it was an accident. Yes, the accident was a big one brought on by extreme negligence and an attitude that can only be understood as hubris. But it still was an accident. There have been worse accidents in the past -- Chernobyl comes to mind -- and there will be worse ones in the future. To face facts instead of becoming deranged by panic is hardly callous.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 14, 2010, 12:50:53 pm
Robert, It seems to me that to see moral equivalence between an accident and a mass murder is putting yourself pretty far out on a limb. As far as the title of this thread is concerned, the gulf blowout wasn't a "crime," it was an accident. Yes, the accident was a big one brought on by extreme negligence and an attitude that can only be understood as hubris. But it still was an accident. There have been worse accidents in the past -- Chernobyl comes to mind -- and there will be worse ones in the future. To face facts instead of becoming deranged by panic is hardly callous.


You are quite wrong. Take it from someone who was a litigation specialist for over 10 years, I can assure you that there really is a concept of criminal negligence---and I can also assure you some of the most damaging and unspeakable crimes (against both human beings as well as to animals and our planet) are a direct result of those people who really don't give a damn about the consequenses of their actions to the other beings or their world.

A true accident is an unexpected consequense. What happened in the Gulf happened was known by all as a distinct possibility. It happened because the weakest of measures were taken because they were "cheaper" than implementing the best measures. Those involved thought they could get away with it ... and they felt (and still feel) absolutely no remorse that their grossly negligent actions failed and caused such misery to so many animals and people.

In the same fashion, if a bus driver were driving a load of children in a bus ... where she knew the steering mechanism was old and might break ... but she drove them down a mountain road anyway because she was too cheap to get truly solid equipment ... and the steering mechanism broke and the bus ran off the mountain killing all the children ... I can likewise assure you that bus driver's negligence would be found as criminal. Why? Because it wasn't an "accident" at all, it was the direct result of her unconscionable negligence where she KNEW this could happen and yet failed to take the utmost responsible precautions to prevent it from happening. That's why.

What happened in the Gulf was no "accident"; it was gross and utter negligence, and it most assuredly was a crime.

Jack




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 14, 2010, 12:58:52 pm
I guess that in the long run, the best thing we can do is to keep lobbying to make sure that fair regulations are put in place, expanded and applied so that:

1. Corporations are only and truly allowed to operate in ways that carry limited risk to the environment,
2. Civil servants compromising with ethics in dealing with these companies are subject to the highest level of penal liability including possible criminal charges,
3. A sufficient penalty is imposed on companies not following the regulations in place, at a scale proportional to the benefits made or expected as a result of the violation of the rules.

As a society and as individuals, it is our own responsibility to adopt ways of living that are as sustainable as possible. It seems likely as of now that fossil fuel being consumed will indirectly cause the death of some people in the years to come.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: RSL on August 14, 2010, 01:24:23 pm
Jack, I had decided not to reply to any of your outbursts, but I've changed my mind for just this one. Yes, I'm quite familiar with the concept of criminal negligence, but criminal negligence is something to be proven in a court of law. You aren't a court of law. I'm not trying to minimize the impact of what happened or the culpability that may be associated with the event, but though your philosophy may disagree with the idea, here in the United States a defendant is innocent until proved guilty. Time to slow down and wait for events to unfold. Also, LuLa is supposed to be about photography, not politics.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: DarkPenguin on August 14, 2010, 01:30:53 pm
"A forum for open discussiom of both photographic and non-photographic topics of a general nature."  (Must be the Canadian spelling of discussion.)

Whether or not the second sentence of the forum description (not included) applies to this conversation is left as an exercise for the reader.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on August 14, 2010, 01:54:13 pm
Thanks for the spell-check ::)
As to the second 'proviso' sentence of the Forum description, I think that given the difference in perspective of the contributors, the discussion has been fairly civil. Thank-you.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 14, 2010, 03:26:34 pm
Jack, I had decided not to reply to any of your outbursts, but I've changed my mind for just this one. Yes, I'm quite familiar with the concept of criminal negligence, but criminal negligence is something to be proven in a court of law. You aren't a court of law. I'm not trying to minimize the impact of what happened or the culpability that may be associated with the event, but though your philosophy may disagree with the idea, here in the United States a defendant is innocent until proved guilty. Time to slow down and wait for events to unfold. Also, LuLa is supposed to be about photography, not politics.


Why are my responses "outbursts?"

If anything, my responses are based on the facts, whereas you weren't even clued-in enough to realize the difference between an "accident" and wanton negligence. I never said I was a court of law, but the fact is I do have more than a decade's-worth of experience overseeing and handling nothing but insurance litigation cases of liability and negligence ... including products liability cases, construction defect cases, etc., ... many of which involved fatalities and millions of dollars' worth of equipment ... so my opinion on what constitutes "gross negligence" in a case such as this is worth quite a bit more than yours.

If you disagree with me that's fine. And if you're embarrassed that you forgot about the concept of "criminal negligence" before you made your own outburst, that's fine too. But it is my opinion that what happened in that gulf ... the deaths of hundreds of millions of animals, of 11 human beings, as well as the unbalancing of the lives of no-telling-how-many other people and animals ... was a crime. A crime of gross negligence and a flagrant disregard for "best practice," which is absolutely unacceptable when the mistakes for such error are so costly to all.

Jack



.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: DarkPenguin on August 14, 2010, 04:00:54 pm
Thanks for the spell-check ::)
As to the second 'proviso' sentence of the Forum description, I think that given the difference in perspective of the contributors, the discussion has been fairly civil. Thank-you.
Thank firefox.

I agree that it has been quite civil.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Rob C on August 14, 2010, 04:59:28 pm
Maybe one of the first lessons to be learned is that no unfortunate event is out of range of the political posturer. I watched even more righteous thinking on the news today, shirt-sleeves and loosened tie... pity it wasn't my Clark Kent outfit instead, and then he could fly right back in time and fix it. Gotta be votes there!

I also watched some CNBC (despite promising myself I wouldn't again after the SI prog.) and the posturing there from the folks involved in Fanny and Freddie and the walls coming tumbling down was amazing too. Guilt? Shame? Well, only on the losing streak; but the game's still on.

Rob C
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: RSL on August 14, 2010, 05:41:37 pm
Maybe one of the first lessons to be learned is that no unfortunate event is out of range of the political posturer.

Unfortunately, you're right, Rob. Even worse is the fact that political posturers are always searching for unfortunate events over which to posture. The posturing in this case is especially unfortunate when you consider the difficulty that's going to be involved in prosecuting any culprit who appears negligent enough to be indicted. Imagine trying to empanel a jury after all the hoopla. Is there anyone out there who hasn't been beat over the head with the kind of loud, hysterical outbursts of which we see examples hourly? Without the posturing and emotion it might have been possible to go straight to the heart of the matter, indict and convict the guilty, and do our best to extract at least a modicum of recompense for the victims. As it is the posturers are going to extract every last drop of political juice they can, and as a result the day of justice will be far off in the future and may never come. If the posturers actually wanted justice they'd shut up now.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 15, 2010, 04:35:09 am
If anything, my responses are based on the facts, whereas you weren't even clued-in enough to realize the difference between an "accident" and wanton negligence. I never said I was a court of law, but the fact is I do have more than a decade's-worth of experience overseeing and handling nothing but insurance litigation cases of liability and negligence ... including products liability cases, construction defect cases, etc., ... many of which involved fatalities and millions of dollars' worth of equipment ... so my opinion on what constitutes "gross negligence" in a case such as this is worth quite a bit more than yours.

If you disagree with me that's fine. And if you're embarrassed that you forgot about the concept of "criminal negligence" before you made your own outburst, that's fine too. But it is my opinion that what happened in that gulf ... the deaths of hundreds of millions of animals, of 11 human beings, as well as the unbalancing of the lives of no-telling-how-many other people and animals ... was a crime. A crime of gross negligence and a flagrant disregard for "best practice," which is absolutely unacceptable when the mistakes for such error are so costly to all.

Jack

There is so much confusion of concept here that it's hard to know where to start the correction process.

An accident is the unintended consequence of an intentional act. The drilling was intentional: the explosion was an accident. To suggest that it was other than an accident implies that it was not unintended: in other words, that it was deliberate. Not even the most hysterical of critics has made such an absurd suggestion.

Accidents may be the result of negligent acts. A "negligent act" in this context means an act whose performance fell below the standard reasonably expected of one competent to undertake it, and whose substandard performance resulted in damage. There is no doubt that the explosion resulted in damage (which here encompasses both injury and physical damage). Whether it was the consequence of a breach of the duty owed to undertake the act competently is another matter entirely, and one on which nobody here is qualified to comment, despite being able to read the lengthy quotation which started this thread.

An act may be so poorly performed that the performance attracts not only civil but also criminal liability. For the reasons above, nobody here is qualified to comment on whether any negligence (if there was negligence) was so gross as to attract such a sanction. It is a serious mistake to confuse the magnitude of the consequences of an act with the degree of culpability necessary to incur criminal liability: the two are wholly independent.

Jack's opinions, as expressed in his last paragraph, are no doubt genuinely held. That doesn't make them right, any more than the genuineness of Russ's views makes them right: but for someone relying heavily and overtly on his own experience to leap to conclusions based on an inevitably superficial knowledge of the facts is a matter of some concern.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 15, 2010, 06:32:11 am
Maybe one of the first lessons to be learned is that no unfortunate event is out of range of the political posturer.

See this (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obamas-fifth-gulf-coast-visit-really-helps-a-lot,17748/).

Jeremy
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 15, 2010, 08:33:35 am
Robert, It seems to me that to see moral equivalence between an accident and a mass murder is putting yourself pretty far out on a limb. As far as the title of this thread is concerned, the gulf blowout wasn't a "crime," it was an accident. Yes, the accident was a big one brought on by extreme negligence and an attitude that can only be understood as hubris. But it still was an accident. There have been worse accidents in the past -- Chernobyl comes to mind -- and there will be worse ones in the future. To face facts instead of becoming deranged by panic is hardly callous.

I implied no such moral equivalence.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: RSL on August 15, 2010, 12:02:56 pm
Robert, You said, and I quote: "...it can be a callous thing to say depending on the context and timing. The families of the 11 guys who died in the explosion might not appreciate the thought. Imagine if someone said it of the World Trade Center destruction."

Explosion in the gulf: accident. Airliners flown into the World Trade Center: murder. Equivalence: 11 guys dead in an accident ≈ roughly 3000 dead in a mass murder.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 16, 2010, 05:43:55 am
Jack,
Let me start off by saying that I do not have any formal education in philosophy.

This is clear.




What you say above is absolutely true. We cannot dispute those facts. Through the ages, people have said those very things.

I agree: perceptive, honest people (concerned for the future) have said these things, true.




I would suggest that our seeming route to self destruction has nothing to do with truth and rights. To coin a crude, old phrase, we do it for the same reason dogs lick themselves...because we can.

I agree that your comment is both crude and old. I disagree, however, that it was in any way accurate.

A dog "licking himself" is not destructive, either to itself, to others, or to the world. The dog's motive for licking itself is also different ...

With regard to the human animal, not all humans are wantonly destructive to the planet, even though all of us "can" be. The truth is, some people actually do care about other beings, and some people actually do care about the environment, and some people actually do care about the future of our planet ... and such caring people actually do make the effort to be conscientious in their choices that affect these things. This is, after all, the definition of a "good" person: a person who is constructive rather than destructive. A person who cares rather than a person who could care less. Thus I disagree with the premise that "all" people are wantonly destroying our planet and indiscriminately harming other beings. Only some people are guilty of these things. The trouble is, many of these people who destroy and harm are those who have the most money and the most power.

Our route to destruction has to do with these powerful and evil people of the world who are NOT good at heart. In other words, the people who don't care about the consequenses of their actions to our world and to others. The collective human ability to destroy this world began with the advent of the industrial age, the use of fossil fuels, as well as the whores in political power whose pockets proved to be able to be greased with money (to facilitate the former) rather than whose decisions are based upon the long-term welfare of our planet and the people on it. In other words, the greed for "excess now" has taken over the wise use of long-term principles.




Now I'd like to ask a question, and I mean this in a completely non combative or confrontational way.
Are you willing to give up your life so that a different species can survive?

This is a sophomoric question, and the answer is no.

First of all, my death wouldn't change a thing, nor would the death of any one person.

A more interesting question would be .... if I could eradicate the entire human race, to save the planet and all of its other inhabitants, would I do it? And the answer is, given the overall destructive nature of our human presence, I would have to give that thought some serious consideration.

The moral dilemma, the paradox as it were, is the simple fact that there really are some great, loving, and caring people in this world ... who really are a source of admiration and standards of all the great things we humans have the potential to be ... and I would never, ever want to cause harm to any such person or people. The flipside to this is that there really are some ugly, useless, and wantonly destructive people in this world ... who do nothing but consume resources, litter, waste, kill and who essentially cause destruction all around them ... and I could waive bye-bye to every single such person and not feel the slightest misgiving. And the whole trouble with the human species lies in the fact that there are a lot more of the latter kinds of person than of the former.

In the end, however, killing-off people is not an ethical solution to our problem, for there is always the chance that any given person can change his or her ways. To my mind, the non-violent, ethical answer to our global problem boils-down to two basic themes: one is the shift away from fossil fuels to cleaner forms of energy, and the other is the madatory enforcement of population control. No couple should be able to have more than one child any longer. And NO couple, who does not have the wherewithal to support themselves financially, should be able to have ANY children at all. And any such violation of these edicts should result in mandatory sterilization. Putting  a cap on reproduction and moving away from environmentally-dangerous fuels is wherein the answers lie.

As it is, generally the lowest and most helpless of people are producing the most offspring ... none of whom can care for themselves ... and the only reason such helpless and dependent people can do this is because of "programs" that continue to feed all of these needy mouths ... which creates a downward spiral of dependancy and the continual overpopulation of more-and-more people who are unable to care for themselves. This is an abomination of Natural Selection, and it needs to stop. Rather than growing exponentially in population, we humans need to shrink exponentially in population. People who cannot care for themselves need to stop reproducing. If they will not stop based on their own commitment to be responsible, then they need to be sterilized. Yes, this would be an encroachment on their "rights," but at this point I think human "rights" need to be replaced by human responsibility, and only when people have first made sure their responsibilities are in order may they then be entitled to their rights. Meanwhile, the people who can take care of themselves, and their children, should only have one child and no more. This world simply does not need any more people; it needs less people. IMO, if these two principles were followed, then in just a couple of generations our overpopulation would be diminished by 3/4ths. If this happened, and with a shift from the dependancy on oils and fossil fuels, to my mind this would be the most sensible, non-violent way to handle the existing problem. Killing existing human lives would be an evil solution to our problems. Allowing everyone to live, but limiting the amount of future human births, would seem to be the fairest way to deal with the dire issue of human overpopulation and the ever-decreasing natural world.

These are tough issues, to be sure. But sitting around doing nothing is the worst thing that can be done, because it is not doing anything about it.

Jack




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 16, 2010, 05:53:20 am
Explosion in the gulf: accident. Airliners flown into the World Trade Center: murder. Equivalence: 11 guys dead in an accident ≈ roughly 3000 dead in a mass murder.


Again, you show an inability to correctly label (and quantify) what happened. Therefore, allow me to assist you in a more correct perspective:

Explosion in the Gulf: Criminal negligence that resulted in MONTHS of ongoing environmental damage ... causing hundreds of millions of deaths to all manner of sea-living creatures, as well as the tragic loss of 11 human lives, as well as the desecration of an entire (and once-rich) biological ecosystem ... not to mention the unbalancing of thousands of other human livelihoods, etc.

World Trade Center: Criminal intent that resulted in thousands of tragic human deaths, ruined one building, damaged some surrounding buildings, but didn't have too much of an impact on our planet or our environment.

Hope this helps,

Jack





.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 16, 2010, 07:54:44 am
I guess that in the long run, the best thing we can do is to keep lobbying to make sure that fair regulations are put in place, expanded and applied so that:
1. Corporations are only and truly allowed to operate in ways that carry limited risk to the environment,
2. Civil servants compromising with ethics in dealing with these companies are subject to the highest level of penal liability including possible criminal charges,
3. A sufficient penalty is imposed on companies not following the regulations in place, at a scale proportional to the benefits made or expected as a result of the violation of the rules.
As a society and as individuals, it is our own responsibility to adopt ways of living that are as sustainable as possible. It seems likely as of now that fossil fuel being consumed will indirectly cause the death of some people in the years to come.
Cheers,
Bernard


This is a level-headed perspective Bernard.

In regards to 3, I would say that penalties up to and including loss of the ability to do business any longer, and a governmental seizure and dispersal of all funds to rectify the damage, as well as criminal charges against responsible parties, would be the kinds of safeguards that would make otherwise unscrupulous enterprises think more than twice about their actions ...

Jack




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 16, 2010, 08:17:59 am
There is so much confusion of concept here that it's hard to know where to start the correction process.
An accident is the unintended consequence of an intentional act. The drilling was intentional: the explosion was an accident. To suggest that it was other than an accident implies that it was not unintended: in other words, that it was deliberate. Not even the most hysterical of critics has made such an absurd suggestion.

The only absurd suggestion is that criminal negligence and an "accident" can't be one and the same in certain circumstances.

An "innocent" accident is one where all available precautions are taken, but an unfortunate result obtains. A criminally-negligent accident is one where the catastrophic possibilities are known, but yet "best practice" to prevent these results from happening is deliberately NOT taken, either out of laziness or indifference. The resulting catastrophic damage to others that occurs, though not deliberately sought, were deliberately not safeguarded against.

And, yes, this is a crime.



Accidents may be the result of negligent acts. A "negligent act" in this context means an act whose performance fell below the standard reasonably expected of one competent to undertake it, and whose substandard performance resulted in damage. There is no doubt that the explosion resulted in damage (which here encompasses both injury and physical damage). Whether it was the consequence of a breach of the duty owed to undertake the act competently is another matter entirely, and one on which nobody here is qualified to comment, despite being able to read the lengthy quotation which started this thread.

This is correct.

The basic premise of negligence and criminal negligence has to do with the "duty of care" owed as well as the "extent of damage possible" by one's actions. Given the magnitude of what could have happened (in fact, did happen) to so many different life forms as well as to our very planet, the potential damage was astronomical ... and so the "duty of care" was at the absolute highest it could possibly be. If ANY measures were taken that were not considered by all available experts to be "best known practice," there is negligence. Plain and simple. If measures were taken that were known to be substandard, even risky and dangerous, but were taken to "cut costs" rather than ensure safety, when so much was at stake, then what happened was more than mere negligence; it was criminal negligence. While I do not have the entire case file, and while I am not the one investigating this matter, I have investigated enough cases of products liability and construction defects ... and I have read enough of the facts about this matter via the media ... to form a sincere opinion that the Gulf incident was a matter of criminal negligence.




Jack's opinions, as expressed in his last paragraph, are no doubt genuinely held. That doesn't make them right, any more than the genuineness of Russ's views makes them right: but for someone relying heavily and overtly on his own experience to leap to conclusions based on an inevitably superficial knowledge of the facts is a matter of some concern.
Jeremy

I understand your perspective and can sympathize with it. However, I am more concerned by people who think only "inanimate objects" were affected by this catastrophe and who think that the deliberate use of substandard practices by ANY company are acceptable, when so much total damage (to humans, to other creatures, and to our very planet) is potentially at stake.

Thanks for your views,

Jack




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: RSL on August 16, 2010, 10:20:54 am
Quote
In the end, however, killing-off people is not an ethical solution to our problem...

but,

Quote
People who cannot care for themselves need to stop reproducing. If they will not stop based on their own commitment to be responsible, then they need to be sterilized.

Any inconsistency between these two ideas?

Quote
This world simply does not need any more people; it needs less people.

As long as I AM AMONG THOSE LESS PEOPLE.

Quote
The collective human ability to destroy this world began with the advent of the industrial age...

Ah, yes. That damned industrial revolution. If it weren't for that sort of thing we (the few indorsed by our betters as not being among the lowest and most helpless) would live idyllic lives hunting and gathering and in the evening dancing happily around our campfires.

Sorry. I should have resisted, but this is such a target-rich environment that it's difficult to pass it up and fly on home.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 16, 2010, 10:57:55 am
but, Any inconsistency between these two ideas?

None at all.

Intelligent people know the difference between killing an existing life and preventing any more from happening. Unless you're prepared to say wearing a condom to prevent pregancy is the same thing as taking an existing human life, or that spaying a dog so it doesn't have anymore pups is the same thing as killing a living animal, even you should be able to see the difference.




As long as I AM AMONG THOSE LESS PEOPLE.

No need to cry-out in all-capital letters. Again, genius, preventing reproduction to diminish the future human population is not harming any individual in the existing human population. I hope I didn't say that too fast.




Ah, yes. That damned industrial revolution. If it weren't for that sort of thing we (the few indorsed by our betters as not being among the lowest and most helpless) would live idyllic lives hunting and gathering and in the evening dancing happily around our campfires.

There is no doubt that the industrial revolution has made our lives easier in many respects, but there is likewise no doubt that it has made it more complicated in others. I think people were generally happier in simpler "Little House on the Prairie" times, when families were a true working unit together, tending only to essential needs ... as opposed to (now) each member going off into his own world, disjointed from the family, with virtually no common goals together.

The attempt to roll one's eyes at this subject only goes to show your own juvenile mentality. Yes, there are many great advantages we as people have today, thanks to "progress" ... but there are also many disadvantages (as well as looming catastrophes) that are likewise the direct result of said progress. I am not sure why you are trying to be such a smartass, especially when you're not all that smart, when being sincere would make this a better discussion for all.

To deny the advantages we all have thanks to our current technology would be dishonest on my part. Yet denying the tremendous damage we've done to the world, and the very real fact there are severe problems that need to be dealt with, is every bit as dishonest on your part. Denial isn't rebuttal; it's only denial. Making jokes isn't rebuttal; it's only juvenile.

I think people can go on enjoying the technology we do have, and yet responsibly take measures to deal with the problems we also have ... gradually trying to reduce said problems ... rather than continuing on as we are to compound them.




Sorry. I should have resisted, but this is such a target-rich environment that it's difficult to pass it up and fly on home.

I agree and thank you for acting as the target. I think the funniest part of all is how your pistol keeps backfiring in your face. Have you ever considered thinking before you write and trying to take a serious subject seriously?

Jack





.

Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: RSL on August 16, 2010, 12:23:33 pm
Quote
Intelligent people know the difference between killing an existing life and preventing any more from happening.

Yes, and they also know the difference between contraception and forced sterilization carried out by the state.

Incidentally, one tool an individual can use to do his part in reducing the world's population is suicide.

Quote
I think people were generally happier in simpler "Little House on the Prairie" times, when families were a true working unit together, tending only to essential needs ...

Wow!!! Jack, have you ever actually read "Little House on the Prairie?" You might want to try it. The only person who could believe what you said is someone who's never lived that way. I remember Santa Fe in the sixties when kids were drifting into the area to "go back to the land." It didn't take them long to find out why their predecessors who'd lived on the land as subsistence farmers had done everything in their power to get off the land. Parts of Laura's life were idyllic, but not many parts, and many of her contemporaries were able to have idyllic lives without having to fight grass fires and locust invasions. To get more of the picture I'd suggest you read the whole "Little House" series.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Rob C on August 16, 2010, 01:07:59 pm
See this (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obamas-fifth-gulf-coast-visit-really-helps-a-lot,17748/).

Jeremy


Indeed! Singing from the same sheet.

Rob C
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Rob C on August 16, 2010, 01:22:50 pm
Am I alone in noting the manner in which some perfectly sound ideas can be sabotaged by a totally unpleasant way of articulating them?

Rob C
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 16, 2010, 02:38:10 pm
If ANY measures were taken that were not considered by all available experts to be "best known practice," there is negligence. Plain and simple.
It's plain and simple but it's plain and simple drivel. It presupposes a consensus which obviously doesn't and could never exist: "all available experts" is a nonsensical concept since it's incapable of definition.

The legal concept of negligence is based on taking those steps which are reasonable, not those steps which only the hysterical could consider necessary. That isn't a point for debate: it's a simple statement of fact.

While I do not have the entire case file, and while I am not the one investigating this matter, I have investigated enough cases of products liability and construction defects ... and I have read enough of the facts about this matter via the media ... to form a sincere opinion that the Gulf incident was a matter of criminal negligence.
Or, to put it another way, "I am ignorant of the facts save for speculation in newspaper articles written by those well-known experts, journalists, but because I have some knowledge of something which is at least superficially vaguely similar, I'm going to form an opinion based on my ignorance in any event and pretend that it has some validity". Hmm. I'd love to have you on a jury.

Incidentally, do we include journalists in the set of "all available experts"? One only has to ask the question to reveal the pointlessness of an answer.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 16, 2010, 02:49:37 pm
A more interesting question would be .... if I could eradicate the entire human race, to save the planet and all of its other inhabitants, would I do it? And the answer is, given the overall destructive nature of our human presence, I would have to give that thought some serious consideration.
The planet is in no danger at all. Whatever we do, however much damage we inflict, the planet will continue to exist. It will exist after all humans have died and, later, after all life has died. It will continue to exist until, in billions of years, it becomes consumed by the sun.

To imagine otherwise is hubris.

No couple should be able to have more than one child any longer.
Spot on. After all, we know how successful that policy has proved to have been in China.

And NO couple, who does not have the wherewithal to support themselves financially, should be able to have ANY children at all. And any such violation of these edicts should result in mandatory sterilization. Putting  a cap on reproduction and moving away from environmentally-dangerous fuels is wherein the answers lie.

As it is, generally the lowest and most helpless of people are producing the most offspring ... none of whom can care for themselves ... and the only reason such helpless and dependent people can do this is because of "programs" that continue to feed all of these needy mouths ... which creates a downward spiral of dependancy and the continual overpopulation of more-and-more people who are unable to care for themselves. This is an abomination of Natural Selection, and it needs to stop. Rather than growing exponentially in population, we humans need to shrink exponentially in population. People who cannot care for themselves need to stop reproducing. If they will not stop based on their own commitment to be responsible, then they need to be sterilized. Yes, this would be an encroachment on their "rights," but at this point I think human "rights" need to be replaced by human responsibility, and only when people have first made sure their responsibilities are in order may they then be entitled to their rights. Meanwhile, the people who can take care of themselves, and their children, should only have one child and no more. This world simply does not need any more people; it needs less people. IMO, if these two principles were followed, then in just a couple of generations our overpopulation would be diminished by 3/4ths. If this happened, and with a shift from the dependancy on oils and fossil fuels, to my mind this would be the most sensible, non-violent way to handle the existing problem. Killing existing human lives would be an evil solution to our problems. Allowing everyone to live, but limiting the amount of future human births, would seem to be the fairest way to deal with the dire issue of human overpopulation and the ever-decreasing natural world.
This is a quite astonishing rant. It has no shred of moral justification. Shall we stop the Jews (of which I am one, not that that matters particularly) from reproducing? The Moslems? The Scientologists? (actually, that last example rather spoils my point but we'll let it pass). Or only the poor? The transiently poor? The poor who have been poor for five years? Those without qualifications?

The invocation of Darwin to support such a policy is bizarre. Social policy leading to genetic modification? To quote John McEnroe, you cannot be serious!

I shan't contribute further to this thread (unless provoked beyond endurance) because I have already come dangerously close to invoking Goodwin's law and the degree of detachment from reality showed by your post is little short of alarming. Sit down, take a stress pill and think things over, Jack.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: feppe on August 16, 2010, 02:55:27 pm
Wow, reading this thread is like reading Hunter S. Thompson filtered through Brett Easton Ellis in his American Psycho days, with a dash of Jared Diamond. Keep it coming!
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: RSL on August 16, 2010, 03:26:02 pm
Harri, I'm not sure we should keep it going. I, for one, would feel pretty badly if an hysterical participant injured himself.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: feppe on August 16, 2010, 07:04:21 pm
Harri, I'm not sure we should keep it going. I, for one, would feel pretty badly if an hysterical participant injured himself.

It's not funny until someone gets hurt :P
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 17, 2010, 08:16:46 am
The planet is in no danger at all. Whatever we do, however much damage we inflict, the planet will continue to exist. It will exist after all humans have died and, later, after all life has died. It will continue to exist until, in billions of years, it becomes consumed by the sun.

Speaking of a pointless rant, that was deep Jeremy. My meaning was clearly the planet's natural beauty as well as its ability to sustain life. It amazes me the tangents people go on to avoid the issue.




To imagine otherwise is hubris.

To argue as you do is inane. Building strawmen to knock down is sophomoric.




Spot on. After all, we know how successful that policy has proved to have been in China.

And we know how much better our world is getting with everyone reproducing, without any checks whatsoever.




This is a quite astonishing rant. It has no shred of moral justification. Shall we stop the Jews (of which I am one, not that that matters particularly) from reproducing? The Moslems? The Scientologists? (actually, that last example rather spoils my point but we'll let it pass). Or only the poor? The transiently poor? The poor who have been poor for five years? Those without qualifications

You raise some interesting points and problems Jeremy, but unfortunately you do it in an affonting way. However, you also blithely miss some key points and concepts. Why do you bring up religion and why do you miss the whole point of what I said? I never said people of certain religions should be prevented from reproducing; I said people who cannot care for themselves, by their own means, should be prevented from reproducing. In other words, people who need governement money to survive should not be able to produce. This means, regardless of race or religion, if you don't have the wherewithal to feed and shelter yourself, you aren't fit to have children. It's pretty much that simple. As it stands, such people (since they don't do anything and have so much time on their hands) typically pump-put the most children ... all of whom are sustained by still more government money. Do you think increasing the amount of people unable to sustain themselves by their own means is preferable to preventing more such people from reproducing? I don't see where you pulled "religion" out of in this discussion (well, I have an idea, but let's keep it clean).




The invocation of Darwin to support such a policy is bizarre. Social policy leading to genetic modification? To quote John McEnroe, you cannot be serious!

What I said only seems bizarre to you because of your own cerebral shortcomings. I will explain what I meant, in the simplest terms, so that you might see the point. Now see if you can follow this thought: The law of Natural Selection = survival of the FITTEST. Meaning, in nature, those animals most equipped to survive do so and thus reproduce the best genes for future populations. I hope you're still with me. Unfortunately, in our society, by keeping people alive who can't even feed themselves (and by letting them reproduce unchecked), our government is encouraging survival of the UNfittest, which is (as I said) an abomination of nature. Nature favors reproduction of those MOST capable of survival; our government policy offers monetary favors to those LEAST capable of survival. We are, in essence, preserving dead weight in our society and encouraging them to make more dead weight.

My own suggestion would be the opposite: those people unable to sustain themselves should NOT be able to reproduce. In nature, they would die off, but we not only keep them alive ... we assist them in making more of their kind. As things stand, such people get more and more money the more and more kids they have. Rather then getting "extra" money when such people reproduce, it is my view they should have penalties for such irresponsibility. I am not sure what you think is "wrong" with this belief system. I find banning irresponsible reproduction far more tenable than the current system which encourages it.

To my way of thinking, having a child is the greatest and most complex personal responsibility that there is. And it is simply irresponsible for any person to have children when they can't even take care of their own needs, and it is even more irresponsible of our government to encourage this with its current model.




I shan't contribute further to this thread (unless provoked beyond endurance) because I have already come dangerously close to invoking Goodwin's law and the degree of detachment from reality showed by your post is little short of alarming. Sit down, take a stress pill and think things over, Jack.
Jeremy

Well, Jeremy, it seems you are the one who needs to take a chill pill. You are speaking of being "provoked" when I originally didn't even address you. You are now refusing to contribute further to this thread, which itself is an admission that you are the one emotionally-affected by it.

Perhaps if you would stop arguing nonsense, and perhaps if you slowed down so that you understood what was being said, we might actually find ourselves more in agreement than not.

Take care,

Jack




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 17, 2010, 08:50:28 am
Yes, and they also know the difference between contraception and forced sterilization carried out by the state.

Exactly. People unable to feed and care for themselves ought to be required to use contraception and thus not burden other people (taxpayers) any more than their own inability to feed themselves already places on others. And, if they irresponsibly have children anyway, in flagrant defiance of this, then yes, I believe they should be sterilized.

IMO, no person, who cannot properly care for themselves, has any business having children. They need to spend every bit of their time trying to get themselves into a position where they CAN take care of themselves and their own needs. Once this is done, then they can think about adding to their own responsibilities.

I am not sure what any honest, sensible person could possibly find wrong with this way of thinking.




Incidentally, one tool an individual can use to do his part in reducing the world's population is suicide.

If you find this a tenable solution, then I encourage you to act on your belief system.




Wow!!! Jack, have you ever actually read "Little House on the Prairie?" You might want to try it. The only person who could believe what you said is someone who's never lived that way. I remember Santa Fe in the sixties when kids were drifting into the area to "go back to the land." It didn't take them long to find out why their predecessors who'd lived on the land as subsistence farmers had done everything in their power to get off the land. Parts of Laura's life were idyllic, but not many parts, and many of her contemporaries were able to have idyllic lives without having to fight grass fires and locust invasions. To get more of the picture I'd suggest you read the whole "Little House" series.

Oh brother. Let us not get caught-up on an analogy that was perhaps not the best I could give, shall we?

My point is simply this: (1) Let us stop using the most damaging of fuels and re-direct our need for fuels to better and cleaner options; and (2) Let us stop reproducing exponentially like a pestilience across the earth. Instead of doubling- and tripling our billions, let us be more aware and create policies intent on reducing those numbers dramatically.

For all our differences of belief, there should be some basic premises upon which we can all agree. I would think that, among those premises, this would include a sincere desire to keep our world as pristine and clean as possible (rather than as dirty and polluted as possible), as well as a desire NOT to so overpopulate the world with big cities filled with hungry mouths that there is no more natural beauty left in the world.

There are simply enough people in this world, and all of us (to one degree or another) pollute our world. Let us therefore choose the cleanest means possible, rather than the dirties means. Let us also try to limit the volume. To help facilitate this, let only those people capable of sustaining themselves have future children, and let those people unable to feed and care for themselves live out their lives but reproduce no further. And, regarding the fuels needed for those living in today's societies, let us move away from the most damaging fuels to the least damaging alternatives.

Or are you suggesting that, in all honesty, there aren't enough people yet in the world, there is no problem of overpopulation ... and that there really is no problem with repeated catastrophic pollotions in the efforts to secure the current fuel model, and so no efforts should be made at making a shift in fuel choices, so that "accidents" like these don't happen anymore?

Jack



.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: RSL on August 17, 2010, 11:41:16 am
Quote
Exactly. People unable to feed and care for themselves ought to be required to use contraception and thus not burden other people (taxpayers) any more than their own inability to feed themselves already places on others. And, if they irresponsibly have children anyway, in flagrant defiance of this, then yes, I believe they should be sterilized.

Jack, You'd have been a happy camper in Germany during the late thirties. As it is, you probably ought to move to China. The authorities there agree with you 100 percent, though they're starting to have second thoughts now that the results of that policy are becoming clearer.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: RSL on August 16, 2010, 11:23:33 AM
Incidentally, one tool an individual can use to do his part in reducing the world's population is suicide.


If you find this a tenable solution, then I encourage you to act on your belief system.

Jack, It's not my belief system. You're the one who's been pushing the idea that the world is overcrowded. I was thinking you might want to act on your belief system -- to set an example -- and that you'd overlooked that solution as a way to demonstrate your dedication.

Quote
Oh brother. Let us not get caught-up on an analogy that was perhaps not the best I could give, shall we?

In other words, as I suspected, you haven't actually read Little House on the Prairie. Jack, it doesn't pay to use examples you're not actually familiar with. It'll catch you up almost every time.

Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 17, 2010, 03:02:22 pm
Jack, You'd have been a happy camper in Germany during the late thirties. As it is, you probably ought to move to China. The authorities there agree with you 100 percent, though they're starting to have second thoughts now that the results of that policy are becoming clearer.

No, I don't agree with the policies of Germany in the late 30s. I don't agree with genocide, nor do I agree with the idea of condemning any individual or group based on race or religion. Rather, I believe in equal freedom for all and in equal opportunity, with the caveat that if one proves incompetent to "get off the ground" based on their own merits they have proven unfit to reproduce because they are unfit to survive under their own power.

I am sorry if you do not have the wattage upstairs to differentiate between hurting innocent people for false reasons versus the fair policy to let all people prove themselves capable (or incapable) of success based on their own merits. You are the only one here suggesting violence, by indicating suicide as a solution to the problem of overpopulation (and I see you haven't yet tried your own idea).

I have not suggested any violence toward any person. I have suggested that there is a tremendous amount of damage being done to our world because of (1) an addiction to fossil fuels and (2) said fuels are needed in such great quantity because of human overpopulation. I have suggested a shift away from fossil fuels and a cap placed on human reproduction. Why are you having such trouble with such basic concepts?

Do you think it is smart policy long-term (or even fair) for people who can't care for themselves to continue to reproduce more of their own kind, expecting "others" to carry the tremndous and ever-increasing financial burden? Do you think the long-term use of environmental-destroying fossil fuels should continue as it is, unabated? I sure don't. And neither does any environmental expert. Only the oil companies and people making money off the trade think we should continue our fuel consumption as-is.




Jack, It's not my belief system. You're the one who's been pushing the idea that the world is overcrowded. I was thinking you might want to act on your belief system -- to set an example -- and that you'd overlooked that solution as a way to demonstrate your dedication.

You really do have trouble with basic concepts, don't you? You must be an astronaut; either that or you just took-up space in school.

I never pushed the idea that existing persons should be killed, either by government nor by their own hand. I suggested that existing persons should be limited in their ability to reproduce, with self-sustaining viable individuals being limited to one child per household, while those who can't even feed themselves without help ought not to have children at all. That you extrapolate all of this other nonsense from what was actually said indicates a severely-limited ability to follow basic ideas, same as your other digressions into the absurd.




In other words, as I suspected, you haven't actually read Little House on the Prairie. Jack, it doesn't pay to use examples you're not actually familiar with. It'll catch you up almost every time.

Once again, you digress into the trivial. I was actually referring to the TV series, not the book. Nothing has "caught up" to me, certainly not you. In fact, I don't think you have actually understood a single concept that has been discussed.

Jack




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: RSL on August 17, 2010, 03:37:25 pm
Well, Jack, Now that you've thoroughly exposed yourself in public I'm out of here. I'm sure the people reading this thread will be able to make their own judgments about the relative merits of the various posts. I suspect most of them already have. Bye bye...
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 17, 2010, 04:20:35 pm
Well, Jack, Now that you've thoroughly exposed yourself in public I'm out of here. I'm sure the people reading this thread will be able to make their own judgments about the relative merits of the various posts. I suspect most of them already have. Bye bye...


Most of the intelligent people will have noticed a pattern to your behavior: missing the point, setting up strawmen arguments to knock down in the place of dealing with what was actually said, failing to answer any direct questions with direct and honest responses, and essentially the attempt to avoid voicing your own opinions.

You debate like a politician or a pettifogger, using snide comments in the place of stating your own honest opinions. Would it be your own honest opinion that there is "no" problem with human overpopulation in this world and that there is "no" massive danger to our environment through the ever-increasing demands for fossil fuels? Or are you just too cowardly to voice your true opinions in public and do you just like to take the easy way out instead?

I guess your very mature "bye bye" says it all ...

Like I said, these are tough issues. And I realize that some of the potential solutions to the discussed problems are going to be unpopular with the non-thinking herd-types (that are content with the status-quo) and who don't want to think about any type of proactive solution to the existing problems. I also realize that most people are more concerned with their "rights" than they are with their responsibilities. In fact, this pandemic fact about most people is why these problems have come to exist in the first place ...

Jack




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: tgamron on August 17, 2010, 04:36:11 pm

Most of the intelligent people will have noticed a pattern to your behavior: missing the point, setting up strawmen arguments to knock down in the place of dealing with what was actually said, failing to answer any direct questions with direct and honest responses, and essentially the attempt to avoid voicing your own opinions.

You debate like a politician or a pettifogger, using snide comments in the place of stating your own honest opinions. Would it be your own honest opinion that there is "no" problem with human overpopulation in this world and that there is "no" massive danger to our environment through the ever-increasing demands for fossil fuels? Or are you just too cowardly to voice your true opinions in public and do you just like to take the easy way out instead?

I guess your very mature "bye bye" says it all ...

Like I said, these are tough issues. And I realize that some of the potential solutions to the discussed problems are going to be unpopular with the non-thinking herd-types (that are content with the status-quo) and who don't want to think about any type of proactive solution to the existing problems. I also realize that most people are more concerned with their "rights" than they are with their responsibilities. In fact, this pandemic fact about most people is why these problems have come to exist in the first place ...

Jack




.


Most of the intelligent people will have noticed a pattern to your behavior: the ad hominem attack.

Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 17, 2010, 04:48:30 pm
Most of the intelligent people will have noticed a pattern to your behavior: the ad hominem attack.

Perhaps. But I distinctly remember being attacked also.

What I don't recall is anyone (yourself included) offering their sincere opinions on this subject nor their sincere solutions to the problems. Most people (like you) have only given one-liners that don't even address the issue. Most of the others who have responded only offer snide remarks or empty catch-phrases.

I can think of only two people who actually had something meaningful to say here and who actually took the time to enter into constructive dialogue about the subject.

Are polite discussion and sticking to the subject lost arts?


.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Jim Pascoe on August 18, 2010, 09:11:10 am
Exactly. People unable to feed and care for themselves ought to be required to use contraception and thus not burden other people (taxpayers) any more than their own inability to feed themselves already places on others. And, if they irresponsibly have children anyway, in flagrant defiance of this, then yes, I believe they should be sterilized.

IMO, no person, who cannot properly care for themselves, has any business having children. They need to spend every bit of their time trying to get themselves into a position where they CAN take care of themselves and their own needs. Once this is done, then they can think about adding to their own responsibilities.

I am not sure what any honest, sensible person could possibly find wrong with this way of thinking.

Jack


Jack, I did have a lot of sympathy with your point of view at the start of this thread, but the above paragraph and some of your previous comments make me wonder just how you would like to impose your ideas.  Presumably the people concerned include a huge proportion of all Africans, living on that continent.  If you just avoid helping them they will all die of disease and starvation anyway.  Is that what we want?  Any woman who refuses to use contraception could be picked up by the 'Special Police', restrained and dragged into an operating theatre to be sterilised.  Or perhaps just drugged to achieve the same end.  Come on, just how would you propose implementing your ideas?
As others have said, the earth will survive and outlive us all.  If humans degrade it enough we will perish as a species, and the earth will not be beautiful anymore.  But so what?  Give it a few thousand years and it will be beautiful once more and other species will flourish. I think your idea of environmental preservation involves killing off all those less gifted and lesser achievers than yourself so that you can appreciate the 'beauty' of the earth without it being messed up.  By killing off, I don't mean murder neccesarily, just left to the 'law of the jungle'.

It pains me to have to write this because I consider myself environmentally aware and am all to aware that population growth is a huge problem.  But your way of thinking is a long way from mine.  High birth rates are usually a symptom of poverty and sometimes a lack of education.  Those are the areas that need to be addressed.  Forced sterilisation and letting those too weak to help themselves wither away without help is just lacking in any humanity.

As for accusing Russ of being cerebrally deficient, that is just so obviously wrong.  I would say that all of the contributors to this thread so far are probably well above average intelligence, and probably a lot more intelligent than me.  I take no issue with you personally, but it scares me when an obviously intelligent person holds such views.  Russ's mention of Germany in the 1930's is exactly where my mind had gone too.  Forcible birth control is only a step away from a police state and 'the final solution'.  That may not be what you intend, but that would be the only way of implementing your ideas.

Mankind has spent most of his existence scrabbling around to eke out a life, mostly of hardship.  For a few centuries, some of us have had the luxury of having a more comfortable life, though many do not.  If we can help those less able to fend for themselves, to educate them, perhaps future generations will inhabit a world where all people can enjoy a comfortable and sustainable lifestyle.
If not, we will just have to bow to human nature.  I for one have no wish to be involved in any sort of artificial population control whether it be selection by race, religion, intellect or financial independence.

Jim
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 18, 2010, 10:19:17 am
Russ's mention of Germany in the 1930's is exactly where my mind had gone too.  Forcible birth control is only a step away from a police state and 'the final solution'.  That may not be what you intend, but that would be the only way of implementing your ideas.

And you don't have to go back 1930s Germany. The US conducted syphilis testing on disposable African-American males, without telling them. A Canadian province (Alberta or Quebec, can't remember) practiced forced sterilization of people with mental handicaps. All that by way of saying that although I don't claim the wisdom of the ages, I've lived long enough that I do not believe that any one human, or any committee, has the wisdom and foresight to make the kind of life decisions that John seems to be advocating.

Recently, people in the financial sector made a ton of money in transaction fees and by betting against the investment advice that they were giving their own clients. They have money now and others lost theirs. Which group's genes do you want to see passed on? You might suggest that the people who got duped deserved it, but that's a pretty primitive understanding of Darwinism, and imo would be applying simple-minded solutions to very complex issues. Or even more crudely, what if some hoodlum went next door to his rich neighbors and stole all their money, so that now he had the wherewithal to look after his kids and the previously rich dude didn't. Are we to then set up committees to study HOW people earned the money they have before deciding to give them licenses to procreate?

The thing is, after 5 minutes of early morning thinking, we can come up with a thousand objections to what John is suggesting. I think he got carried away because he was incensed at the repulsive behavior of some corporate entities in the Gulf, a point of view with which I have more than a little sympathy. We seem to have bred the idea that the purpose of the surrounding culture (us, our society) is to exist so that rich guys in corporations could get richer. Healthy economies are good for everyone, but the bottom line is that what we do in the commercial sphere fits inside the surrounding culture and should derive its purpose from it. I mean, we don't allow companies to buy and sell black people anymore, do we? Yes, it seems to be good to dig up some oil because the way we live seems to depend on it, including a lot of good things. But I don't think that means that the people who dig up the oil should be allowed to do so at any cost, or to pass those costs on to others when it's convenient.

There does exist the narrow-minded view that corporations should only be concerned with their own profit, that they have no other purpose. Well, okay, but over the last century we have given corporations more and more of the rights that were previously only given to individual human beings. Seems to me that some responsibilities should come with those rights. We allowed the creation of corporations to suit our needs. If and when they don't fulfill those needs anymore, we have the right to dismantle them. Maybe sometimes we ought to, for the same reasons that we put crooks in jail.

But I am pessimistic. Our mode of government, representative democracy, came about in part to protect ordinary citizens from the abusive arbitrary power of the nobility. Since the avg joe was being taxed, it eventually dawned on people that the avg joe should have a say in how his/her money was spent, and not the business of some earl or duke to decide. Somehow, we now live in this world where those same governments seem to cater more to the needs of corporations, as if whatever they want is necessarily good for everyone else. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 18, 2010, 11:20:14 am
Jack, I did have a lot of sympathy with your point of view at the start of this thread, but the above paragraph and some of your previous comments make me wonder just how you would like to impose your ideas.  Presumably the people concerned include a huge proportion of all Africans, living on that continent.  If you just avoid helping them they will all die of disease and starvation anyway.  Is that what we want?  Any woman who refuses to use contraception could be picked up by the 'Special Police', restrained and dragged into an operating theatre to be sterilised.  Or perhaps just drugged to achieve the same end.  Come on, just how would you propose implementing your ideas?

Jim, first of all, I would like to thank you for your honest and sincere response: so thank you.

Second, I understand that the ideas I set forth are replete with their own problems, mostly emotional, as we human beings are an emotional lot. I believe, in many instances, our emotions and ability to sympathize are what lift us up to a spiritual level, so long as the facts add-up and make sense. On the other hand, when the facts are against us, clinging emotionally to ineffective beliefs and practices only harms us in the end.

Yes, I agree, if we fail to help those who are starving and can't help themselves, they will ultimately starve and die. This is a cold, harsh reality of nature: when any species overpopulates beyond the ability of the natural surroundings to sustain all the created lives, a certain percentage of that population will die-off. As cold and harsh as this is, there is nothing evil or wrong with this. It is as it should be, and was designed to be, by nature itself. By our continually trying to keep a population alive by feeding it, we thereby ensure those lives will continue and reproduce still more lives, all of which then likewise need to be fed, and all of which likewise will reproduce still more needy mouths, which in turn creates a never-ending cycle of trying to keep an ever-growing body of people alive by artifical means. This in turn creates a greater and greater need for our own natural lands to be cut down, so more and more farms can be created to supply these food items, thereby creating a never-ending need to cause a continual deforestation of our planet (not to mention waste our own taxpayer's money) in this essentially foolish and futile enterprise.

So the question is, which is the greater evil, ultimately? Allowing nature to work as it was intended to work, by decreasing what clearly is "surplus population" ... or defying nature itself, continuing to keep those people alive, thereby ensuring that still more people will be born to a totally depauperate region, and thus continue-and-continue to spread and continue-and-continue needing to be fed by outside help, which in turn will continue-and-continue to require still more resources from us and others ... itself requiring the clearing of more and more natural lands in favor of making room for more-and-more farms?

Which manner of handling things is more rational, more responsible, and (really) more sane? Simply allowing nature to procede as nature itself intends? Or neurotically meddling with other people, creating a never-ending and ever-growing financial burden to ourselves, and thereby increasing this problem exponentially which (ultimately) will cause the deforestation of more-and-more of our planet, because we not only have to make room for more-and-more people that will survive and reproduce still more people, but we also have to make room for more-and-more farmlands to sustain them, which means less-and-less of our natural world left over. Although no sensitive person likes to think about the misfortunes of other persons, I think in the long run the proposal I make is more sensible, more natural, and (ultimately) better for our world in general. And I think the current model is ultimately more destructive to our world.

To address your other point, yes, any person not able to care for themselves should not be adding to this miserable situation by compounding this problem with another life to care for ... and if a person proves to be so irresponsible that they do so anyway, they should be sterilized. Again, I understand the emotion of not wanting to interfere with another human being's liberty, but I also understand the reality that there really are people unfit to have and raise children. I think if anyone really wants to have children, then they will so order their lives so that they can be properly provided for. I also think that anyone who has not so ordered their lives that they cannot even provide for themselves, then they have no business having children. At least not until they get their life in proper order. And I very much do think that if any person can't see the basic sense in this, that they have a problem with reality. I do not think our government has any business taxing its productive citizens to pay for the livelihood and reproduction of its unproductive citizens. I do understand that some people fall victim to bad circumstances, but such people usually bounce right back out of it into good circumstances again. It's the habitual parasite, or the incapable, that I am talking about.

As far as how I would implement all of the ideas, I do not have all of the answers, but if I were in a decison-making prosition I would get busy figuring it out.




As others have said, the earth will survive and outlive us all.  If humans degrade it enough we will perish as a species, and the earth will not be beautiful anymore.  But so what?  Give it a few thousand years and it will be beautiful once more and other species will flourish. I think your idea of environmental preservation involves killing off all those less gifted and lesser achievers than yourself so that you can appreciate the 'beauty' of the earth without it being messed up.  By killing off, I don't mean murder neccesarily, just left to the 'law of the jungle'.

That is a nihilistic view of the problem. That is tantamount to saying as an individual, "Well, since I am going to die at some point anyway, I may as well not make the effort to have a good life." Some people actually live their lives based on this kind of nihilism, but effective people try to make the most of whatever life they do have, while it is around to be enjoyed.

It is my view that this same truth should apply to our care and treatment of our planet. Just because the sun may grow cold and all of life may at some point come to an end, doesn't mean we shouldn't take care of our planet as best we can while we do have it. A nihilistic view of one's own mortality is as senseless as a nihilistic view of the world itself. Making the best we possibly can with what we have is far more sensible and (ultimately) preferable, if we're going to live quality lives.

I also disagree with your implication of "killing off" anyone. Killing is an action. Allowing to die is non-action. Most scientists out in the field allow the animals to kill and be killed as nature intended. If a tortoise falls to its back, the objective scientist lets it die. Emotionally, the scientist may want to right the poor creature, but intellectually and naturally he will allow it to die (or to right itself, if the creature has the strength to do so). Again, this is not evil, it is the way it should be. It is my belief that we humans constantly meddling in the way things should be *IS* our problem ...




It pains me to have to write this because I consider myself environmentally aware and am all to aware that population growth is a huge problem.  But your way of thinking is a long way from mine.  High birth rates are usually a symptom of poverty and sometimes a lack of education.  Those are the areas that need to be addressed.  Forced sterilisation and letting those too weak to help themselves wither away without help is just lacking in any humanity.

Well, Jim, I again appreciate and respect your open and honest dialogue on this issue. This is exactly the kind of non-infammatory dialogue I was hoping for. However, to be unwilling to see the consequences of allowing every single human being to live, and to reproduce, even when the environment won't naturally support this ... and even though this means more-and-more deforestation of our planet ... is NOT being very "environmentally-aware" at all. And I say this seriously and with respect.




As for accusing Russ of being cerebrally deficient, that is just so obviously wrong.  I would say that all of the contributors to this thread so far are probably well above average intelligence, and probably a lot more intelligent than me.  I take no issue with you personally, but it scares me when an obviously intelligent person holds such views.  Russ's mention of Germany in the 1930's is exactly where my mind had gone too.  Forcible birth control is only a step away from a police state and 'the final solution'.  That may not be what you intend, but that would be the only way of implementing your ideas.

I do not want to go back to the insults, as I do not think they are productive, so I will just stick to the facts. Regardless of where your mind (or Russ' mind) went, to compare what I said to Nazi Germany was a flat-out inaccuracy, and (really) by a country mile. First of all, I have no hatred towards any race of religion, nor are the policies I suggested directed towards any. The policies favor ANYONE able to sustain himself. In point of fact, this is Nature's policy. Any person of any creed or race that can succeed is to be saluted. Any person of any race or creed that cannot should not be "helped," they should be allowed to do whatever they can for themselves, but if that winds up being nothing, then this is the way it goes sometimes in ALL of life. To artificially keep every single non-self-sustaining person alive ... and (worse) to encourage and pay for them to reproduce more of the same thing ... is ultimately the greatest evil to our world, and really to the people themselves. That would be like keeping and breeding every stray dog in every dog pound, and keeping and breeding every pup they had. That's just crazy. It simply compounds and makes more problems for all. While I don't like stray dogs getting killed either, I do believe they should be spayed/neutered so that they don't further compound the problem. Before anyone has a heart attack about the comparison to dogs, they ought to realize the principle is the same: it is simply irresponsible to facilitate (nay, TO FUND) the continual reproduction of any creatures that do not have their own home and cannot even care for themselves. Again, I do not believe any living being should be intentionally harmed or mistreated, but I certainly believe that those who cannot sustain themselves shouldn't be bred to create more of the same.




Mankind has spent most of his existence scrabbling around to eke out a life, mostly of hardship.  For a few centuries, some of us have had the luxury of having a more comfortable life, though many do not.  If we can help those less able to fend for themselves, to educate them, perhaps future generations will inhabit a world where all people can enjoy a comfortable and sustainable lifestyle.

I believe any decision to "help others" ought to be an individual choice. If I decide to help someone, that is up to me. I do not want to be "forced" to help everyone in the world, through taxation. I worked for my money, it's my money, and if I only wish to help myself and my close loved ones, I should be able to. The way things stand, the government robs all of us citizens, through taxation, and spreads our money around to help people who can't help themselves ... creating more and more of them ... which means more and more costs ... and then forces us to pay more and more taxes to keep this insane spiral going.

I simply believe that people are responsible for their own decisions. I also believe that, if more people focused FIRST on their responsibilities, and only then worried about their "rights," that this world would be a far better place for all. The responsibility NOT to have children, when one can't even properly care for oneself, is arguably the greatest personal responsibility there is. And yet no one DEMANDS that people take charge of this responsibility; instead they reward the flagrant IRresponsibility of having children anyway, and "force" everyone else to foot the bill.

I think this is the greatest immorality of all ... to reward the irresponsible and to "force" the responsible to foot the bill.




If not, we will just have to bow to human nature.  I for one have no wish to be involved in any sort of artificial population control whether it be selection by race, religion, intellect or financial independence.
Jim


You in fact do believe in governmental "force" ... you just believe that government should "force" every responsible and capable individual to "help" those who are either not responsible or not capable. You can't have it both ways.

My belief is simply that the government force should be reversed: that capable and responsible people should NOT be forced to pay the bills for the reproduction of the irresponsible and incapable, but that the irresponsible and incapable should be forced not to reproduce, but to take care of their own responsibilities first.

In my view, your way (the current way) creates continual overpopulation, continual deforestation, and continual heavy taxation ... while my way would reduce the population, would reduce the need for deforestation, and it would ultimately reduce taxation also.

Again, I sincerely appreciate your views,

Jack




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Mark Anderson on August 18, 2010, 02:18:06 pm
This thread started out by talking about the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and I think John K. for bringing that to my attention.

I have followed somewhat desultorily the discussions that have followed, but want to step aside from the back-and-forth give-and-take, to make a few comments.

I think the issue for many of us is that it is just extremely frustrating to try and figure out how we as individuals can effect any realistic changes when it so often appears that corporate and governmental entities are making short-term gain decisions that result in long-term harm to the environment. And I think we need to acknowledge that human populations are part of many of the planet's ecosystems, at least by impact even if we don't actually live in the deep oceans or the vast majority of the Antarctic. And take responsibility for our often negative impact on those ecosystems.

It seems very difficult to reach any sort of consensus about how we as humans ought to be inhabiting our environment. Consensus on what we consume, consensus on how much of it we ought to consume, and consensus on how to dispose of the waste products that result from our consumption. Perhaps the ideal solutions are aggregated at corporate & governmental levels, because it would seem their positive effect on the environment would be so much more powerful in seeing actual benefits to the environment than if I individually undertake to use my bicycle in place of my car whenever possible. But if you can't get corporations or governments to adopt rational policies regarding consumption of resources, isn't the next best thing for each one of us to take some responsibility for our own consumptions?

I am not preaching here, or exhorting, and certainly not scolding, because all I have to do is look in the mirror and know that I am as much a part of the problem as of the solution. It's tough to live in 21st century America, as I do, and not be a contributor to the degradation of the environment.

One of the interesting things about what is going on right now, though, is what is happening in China. We all know about the environmental horror stories coming out of China -- the dependence on soft coal, the air and water pollution, the deforestation, the subsiding water table (picture what happens if and when sea levels rise at the same time that Shanghai is sinking.....in a city of 21 million permanent residents), etc. But there is another story coming out of China these days, and that is the emerging sector of green technologies.

Let me digress, and disclose that I have a great fondness for China, having studied the language for decades, lived in China for several years, taught Chinese off and on, catered Chinese meals for friends and colleagues, and next year will be leading photo tours and workshops to China (somehow balancing the benefits of cross-cultural understanding with the detriments of the carbon footprint incurred by flying participants to and from China).

As an autocratic, top-down government, China can effect change relatively quickly (at least as compared to the pace of regulated change in Western democracies). Already China's green technology sector is very competitive with companies in the US and Europe, and Chinese companies are projected to become the dominant providers of green technology solutions in the next decade.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: Jim Pascoe on August 19, 2010, 12:05:49 pm
As an autocratic, top-down government, China can effect change relatively quickly (at least as compared to the pace of regulated change in Western democracies). Already China's green technology sector is very competitive with companies in the US and Europe, and Chinese companies are projected to become the dominant providers of green technology solutions in the next decade.

And this is where, despite Jack's arguments for reducing state influence, lies the only hope of securing the future for the Human Race.


I believe any decision to "help others" ought to be an individual choice. If I decide to help someone, that is up to me. I do not want to be "forced" to help everyone in the world, through taxation. I worked for my money, it's my money, and if I only wish to help myself and my close loved ones, I should be able to. The way things stand, the government robs all of us citizens, through taxation, and spreads our money around to help people who can't help themselves ... creating more and more of them ... which means more and more costs ... and then forces us to pay more and more taxes to keep this insane spiral going.

I simply believe that people are responsible for their own decisions. I also believe that, if more people focused FIRST on their responsibilities, and only then worried about their "rights," that this world would be a far better place for all. The responsibility NOT to have children, when one can't even properly care for oneself, is arguably the greatest personal responsibility there is. And yet no one DEMANDS that people take charge of this responsibility; instead they reward the flagrant IRresponsibility of having children anyway, and "force" everyone else to foot the bill.

I think this is the greatest immorality of all ... to reward the irresponsible and to "force" the responsible to foot the bill.
.

Jack, this is what we call a society.  You are not the only one who gets incensed about lazy spongers and people who seem to take but never contribute.  We use our bicycles for many local journeys, switch off all electrical items not being used, do not waste water, never throw litter down, take old Mr Briddon next door (aged 90) for his doctors appointments, and generally try to be good neighbours.  However we also believe that the state has a huge role to play in domestic and foreign affairs. Taxation and forced sterilisation are really not very similar in their impact.  I really can see your point of view though, however we will just have to agree to differ. Perhaps you could make a trip to a remote African state in the grip of drought and see a parent watching their child die from lack of basic nutrition or clean drinking water. I would dare you to say to these people that they will all just have to die through natural selection and not be moved to help then somehow.  It is just that we can not all go there ourselves and so most are prepared to give money through charity or state-funded aid to help the plight of those unable to help themselves.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 20, 2010, 08:46:15 am
This thread started out by talking about the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and I think John K. for bringing that to my attention.
I have followed somewhat desultorily the discussions that have followed, but want to step aside from the back-and-forth give-and-take, to make a few comments.
I think the issue for many of us is that it is just extremely frustrating to try and figure out how we as individuals can effect any realistic changes when it so often appears that corporate and governmental entities are making short-term gain decisions that result in long-term harm to the environment. And I think we need to acknowledge that human populations are part of many of the planet's ecosystems, at least by impact even if we don't actually live in the deep oceans or the vast majority of the Antarctic. And take responsibility for our often negative impact on those ecosystems.
It seems very difficult to reach any sort of consensus about how we as humans ought to be inhabiting our environment. Consensus on what we consume, consensus on how much of it we ought to consume, and consensus on how to dispose of the waste products that result from our consumption. Perhaps the ideal solutions are aggregated at corporate & governmental levels, because it would seem their positive effect on the environment would be so much more powerful in seeing actual benefits to the environment than if I individually undertake to use my bicycle in place of my car whenever possible. But if you can't get corporations or governments to adopt rational policies regarding consumption of resources, isn't the next best thing for each one of us to take some responsibility for our own consumptions?
I am not preaching here, or exhorting, and certainly not scolding, because all I have to do is look in the mirror and know that I am as much a part of the problem as of the solution. It's tough to live in 21st century America, as I do, and not be a contributor to the degradation of the environment.
One of the interesting things about what is going on right now, though, is what is happening in China. We all know about the environmental horror stories coming out of China -- the dependence on soft coal, the air and water pollution, the deforestation, the subsiding water table (picture what happens if and when sea levels rise at the same time that Shanghai is sinking.....in a city of 21 million permanent residents), etc. But there is another story coming out of China these days, and that is the emerging sector of green technologies.
Let me digress, and disclose that I have a great fondness for China, having studied the language for decades, lived in China for several years, taught Chinese off and on, catered Chinese meals for friends and colleagues, and next year will be leading photo tours and workshops to China (somehow balancing the benefits of cross-cultural understanding with the detriments of the carbon footprint incurred by flying participants to and from China).
As an autocratic, top-down government, China can effect change relatively quickly (at least as compared to the pace of regulated change in Western democracies). Already China's green technology sector is very competitive with companies in the US and Europe, and Chinese companies are projected to become the dominant providers of green technology solutions in the next decade.

Very interesting post Mark. Thanks.




.
Title: Re: Crime of the Century
Post by: JohnKoerner on August 20, 2010, 09:34:36 am
And this is where, despite Jack's arguments for reducing state influence, lies the only hope of securing the future for the Human Race.

Hello again Jim.

My arguments were not in favor of reducing the state influence, but rather shifting the "force" of the state towads the parasitic not the contributors. I don't think productive citizens should be forced to foot the bill for the unproductive. I think the unproductive citizens should be forced not to have any more children.

As things stand, you and I pull our own weight, make our own money, feed and shelter ourselves, and pay taxes. And we get no extra benefits.

Yet an unemployed couple, who don't have the talent (or will) to make their own money, or feed and shelter themselves, and who don't pay taxes ... they get all the befefits in the world: food money, shelter money, grants for education, etc. Worse, they get more money if they reproduce.

Meanwhile you and I, who pay taxes and keep the economy rolling with OUR money, not only don't get any extra benefits ... but we have to foot the food, clothing, shelter, and education bill for people who contribute nothing to the pot.

Where we disagree is in "who" should be forced to do something they don't want to do? I say it's the UNproductive who should be forced. As things stand, it is the productive who get forced. For example, if I decide I have the right NOT to pay any extra taxes to feed the dead weight of society, you think it's perfectly okay for the government to "force" me or to throw me in jail. Even though I am a contributing member of society, you have no problem at all if my right to keep my own hard-earned money in my pocket gets taken from me and/or you have no problem at all if I get thrown in jail (my freedom taken away) for refusal to do so. Which means you don't mind this force being implemented against yourself either. You think this is perfectly okay.

Yet, for some reason, you weep at the thought of a NON-productive person being forced "not" to have children, and you weep at the thought of such a person being forcibly-sterilzed if they decide to have children anyway.

To my way of thinking, this is simply bass-ackwards. We are the one who deserve the freedom by being productive, contributing citizens. It is the "dead weight" of society, who contribute nothing, who should have their freedoms curtailed, not us. Rather than forcing everyone "else" to pay for the non-contributors, it is the non-contributors who should be subject to force ... either to get back into a position of contribution or to have their rights to reproduce removed.




Jack, this is what we call a society.  You are not the only one who gets incensed about lazy spongers and people who seem to take but never contribute.

Yes, Jim, I realize this is a society. But my being incensed isn't just about my own wallet, it is about the basics of right-and-wrong also. Worse, it is likewise tied-in to the issue of overpopulation, land-clearing, as well as all of the extra foods and fuels required to supply and deliver to these extra masses of dead weight to our society.

A truly well-run society ought not to carry any dead weight, same as any other smooth-running system or machine. Government taxes taken from us all should therefore BENEFIT us all. For example, the taxes that get taken from everyone should be put into roadways that benefit everyone; a postal system that benefits everyone; a police system that benefits everyone; etc. If everyone gets taxed, and everyone benefits from the use of said tax, then this is a fair system of taxation, and I am quite happy to be a part of it.

However, when the contributing taxpayers get their money taken and they fail to benefit at all, and only the people who DON'T contribute are the ones who derive benefit, then this is an UNfair (and quite frankly bullshit) method of taxation. Such a system is an affront to any concept of "fairness" you want to talk about. Worse, the system (by NOT forbidding reproduction, and in fact by encouraging it through more money offered) actually sets up a greater-and-greater perpetual need for more-and-more taxation of its contributing taxpayers, the more-and-more mouths that get created needing to be fed on a handout.

Again, not only is this an abomination of nature, by keeping alive the unfit, and not only is it an affront to any concept of "fairness" to us contributing citizens, but the tremendous and exponential population growth that our proposterous current system facilitates is ALSO precisely why more and more of our lands and resources are needed.

And, plainly and simply, this insanity needs to stop. It is the irresponsible and incapable who should have their rights suppressed, not the capable and responsible. It is the irresponsible and the incapable who ought to be forced NOT to have children, not the capable and the responsible who should be forced to foot the bill for their wanton irresponsibility. Because, plainly and simply, anyone who cannot support themselves (let alone a child) but who has a child anyway *IS* irresponsible. And it is this irresponsiblity which is the problem and is what should be addressed, rather than being allowed and encouraged.




We use our bicycles for many local journeys, switch off all electrical items not being used, do not waste water, never throw litter down, take old Mr Briddon next door (aged 90) for his doctors appointments, and generally try to be good neighbours.

You sound like a very kind and responsible person. Hats off to you.




However we also believe that the state has a huge role to play in domestic and foreign affairs. Taxation and forced sterilisation are really not very similar in their impact.

I respectfully disagree.

I would rather see the one-time use of my tax money allocated to sterilizing an irresponsible person, than see it used every month of every year to feed their offspring ... and their offspring's offspring ... etc., etc.

A quick snip to the irresponsible is the more logical, the more economical, and the fairer way to handle this issue than forcibly making the responsible pay their food and shelter bills for a lifetime.

If the irresponsible don't want to be snipped, they can simply choose to be responsible and not have children. Pretty simple really.




I really can see your point of view though, however we will just have to agree to differ.

I appreciate your seeing my point of view. I also see yours, and I also have feelings of sympathy to those in a truly bad spot. Where we differ is in the feeling of responsibility for it. While I sympathize, I do not feel in any way responsible for anyone else's situation, because I simply am not. I also don't feel anyone else is responsible for my situation, nor do I ask for anyone else's "help" to get myself out of any bad situation; I simply get myself out of it.

And, again, I believe the world would be a better place if everyone else acted likewise.




Perhaps you could make a trip to a remote African state in the grip of drought and see a parent watching their child die from lack of basic nutrition or clean drinking water. I would dare you to say to these people that they will all just have to die through natural selection and not be moved to help then somehow.  It is just that we can not all go there ourselves and so most are prepared to give money through charity or state-funded aid to help the plight of those unable to help themselves.

Again, while I sympathize for the plights of the unfortunate, I believe it is a neurotic disorder of thinking to somehow feel "responsible" for getting everyone who's in a bad spot OUT of their bad spot. That is up to them and that is up to their mother. It was also the mother's choice to have sex and get pregnant, which IMO would make a starving woman a non-thinking idiot to do this to herself and her potential child. The last thing I personally would want to do (or have the inconsideration to do) would be to bring a life into this world that I couldn't properly take care of. It is my view that we really don't need "more" people in this world who are that thoughtless and that inconsiderate to do so. So my bleeding heart tends to stop when I think of the piss-poor mentality that created that tragic life to begin with.

And then, when I think of the millions and millions of dollars it will take to continue feeding all these people forever ... who will then make more-and-more needy mouths to feed ... requiring more-and-more food and money ... which in turn will require more-and-more deforestation to make room for more-and-more farms (all of which, of course, requires the usage of more-and-more fossil fuels which likewise destroy our world and environment) I get pretty cold-hearted about the whole thing, Jim, when I take into acount the whole picture.

So, yes Jim, I would dare. Because, when I consider ALL the facts, I truly believe allowing the incapable and the thoughtless to perish is ultimately the better solution for the world, and for us all, because it is as nature itself indended.

Jack




.