Not enough focus on environmental issues

Post Reply New Topic

There are such things as vertical gardens now, that can grow up the side of existing structures. There are many examples of even high rise buildings with vertical gardens from ground to roof. Still plenty of room for human beings to live

Funny seeing as how a lot the tech being developed to fight it is coming strait out of the U.S. I guess smart people have decided that posting on a forum about crap isnt a very good way of actually accomplishing anything and so they have better things to do with their time.

What anti scientific attitudes would you be talking about? I think that trying to address environmental issues through politics is extremely anti scientific for one, but people seem to have this magical type of thinking that lets them believe its a good idea. Science is the ultimate cause of most environmental impact humans are having and it will have to be the solution as well. I cant for the life of me understand why anyone would think that government or politics is going to solve anything. Government is not science. Science was free to harm the planet and now is has to be FREE to help preserve. That means getting government out of the way so that people and science can do their thing, its doesnt mean we need more government.

Beliefs like that are why progress is slow in the first place. Its going to come down to a relatively small number of guys in lab coats to figure this out, and they dont give a sht about how you vote, sorry.

Heres what you get when you try to combine science and politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14kNtnJgXXM

Not very pretty

That is a terrible example. Someone saying "million" when they mean "thousand" is not good, but it pales compared to some of the monstrosities committed in the name of science by politicians. Drugs policy is the big one - both legal and illegal drugs have been treated incorrectly because politicians can't or won't understand statistics.

Whether we like it or not, science and politics are fundamentally linked, because governments fund extraordinary amounts of research and the educations of scientists. Politicians can pass laws, and these laws can do a great deal of good for the environment.

We need politicians who understand science, not politicians who think "oh, let's leave "the scientists" to do their own thing".

Capitalists are ruining the environment, no doubt. However, the positive human instincts that want to maintain an environment that will be fit for our grandchildren to live in are often cynically manipulated by capitalists to promote human-harming policies. When I see environmental issues raised in the msm it is often as justification for lower wages, ostensibly as a means to limit consumption. Likewise, the MSM's recognition of the environmental impact of coal tends to be put forth as an argument for nuclear power, rather than clean energies. I would suggest that people be wary of jumping on environmentalism bandwagons without first researching the organisations that are promoting them.

Last edited by Stannis on 29 Apr 2014, 9:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Communism certainly didnt do Russia's environment any favors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzerzhinsk,_Russia

Yep, the Soviets set the gold medal standard for environmental destruction, but since neither of us live in a communist regime, that's hardly relevant, is it.

Last edited by Stannis on 28 Apr 2014, 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It wasn't a capitalist regime, either, was it?

It had a state capitalist economic system, and I don't recall ever saying it was good. Your binary presuppositions are not picking up what people are really saying.