From: no@spamthank.s
AC wrote:
> "Ian B" wrote in message
> news:4b3b6e58$0$2523$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> .. wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>> As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
>>> planet.
>>
>> No it isn't. Fuck off.
>>
>
> Never understood the idea of aggressively arguing for greedy glutinous
> behavior, even if global warming is BS. What are anti GW people
> afraid of? A better environment for all? Efficient conservative use
> of limited resources? How terrible.
The problem here is that the "pros" don't have a fucking clue. So, they
don't understand economics, for instance, and why the la-la-land they dream
of will be a cesspit of poverty and misery.
So what are we afraid of? A collapse of the world economy, a world where a
few rich oligarchs are okay and everyone else is a dung farmer. That's not a
better environment, it's a catastrophe.
So, because environmentalism is a puritan moralist campaign, people who
simply want to make the best of their lives and enjoy themselves a bit and,
shock horror, experience some comfort are derided as "greedy" and
"glutinous" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. It's irrational,
mean-spirited and grotesque. How terrible indeed.
You want to be a dung farmer fine, go ahead, but don't expect to be able to
rave on about it on the internet, because there won't be one, just a short,
uncomfortable life spent staring at the arseholes of a pair of oxen; the
life many in the Poor World already experience and which the Greens are
determined to condemn their descendents to for all time. It's not "efficient
use of limited resources", it's teeth-grinding, howling poverty, the very
thing our ancestors struggled with all their might to escape.
"Even if Global Warming is BS" is the giveaway here. Environmentalism is a
*moral* campaign, religiosity sans God, and the various constructed crises
that justify it are merely a means of furtherance of that moralist
objective. Greens don't care whether CO2 is good or bad, it's just a means
to tear down liberal society, a means to force everybody back to a world of
mass starvation when the rains don't come.
> Its funny how the antis are also so nasty, scornful, personal, and
> aggressive about it, where as the pro lot happily use calmly presented
> scientific evidence. Always seems to be the nasty mob who end up on
> the wrong side of things in the end.
Considering the vicious rhetoric deployed against anyone who disagrees with
them by the Greenists, that's a ridiculous statement. The Nasty Mob are
those arseholes storming around at "anti-capitalist" protests, not the
rational few attempting to defend advanced society from the primitivists.
If you succeed (as I presume by your post you are an Environmentalism
supporter), you will bring down civilisation. You will cause mass
starvation, the collapse of living standards and, consequently, a return to
the vicious, bloody, genocidal struggles for land and resources that
characterised most of human history until liberal capitalism gave us a way
out. Primitive, unproductive, pre-capitalist societies are never at peace,
because the only way to expand their economies is to steal stuff from their
neighbours. It is a state of constant war. Anyone who is in favour of that
nightmare deserves a harsh word or two.
Go and learn about economics, and thus how the world works (because
economics is the study of impersonal human interaction; that is, how the
mass of us interact and distribute production). Until you understand that,
you cannot hold a considered point of view. All you have instead is a load
of romantic nonsense about eternal forests without any rational
underpinning. We cannot return to the past, and neither should we want to,
for the past was a ghastly place. The only way forward for humanity is...
forward.
Ian
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
