Greens, anti-corporatist and anti-corruption politics

Post Reply New Topic

I took the thread title (specifically the first word) to mean that this thread was about Green politics in general, so I made two criticisms of Green politics. I thought that these criticisms are very relevant, particularly as they will reduce the impact humanity has on the planet which to me should be the central core of any environment policy.

Based on the last post, I see that I misinterpreted the title and it was actually meant to be about the Green Party's stance on anti-corporatist and anti-corruption politics. I have no issues with the Green Party there and I agree that these are goals we should be working towards. I am sorry for inadvertently taking the thread off topic, though in my defence I only mentioned other issues in passing.

I am unsure if I am the poster referred to as not giving a substantial response when something I asked for is provided. Firstly I didn't ask for anything, secondly I did respond to the post with a very substantial one of my own, in which I agreed with many of the points made.

I would point out that a discussion where nobody is allowed to disagree doesn't normally last very long.

I don't see that as impossible, considering that there was a massive nuclear melt down a year ago and that Monsanto will probably cause a mass famine at some point with their terminator crops.

I will look it up on google because I don't feel like watching a video at the moment...anti-corporatist and anti-corruption. Though other then that I question the extent to which humans can change the course of major global changes since they went on long before humans existed and if humans cease to exist probably continue. So yeah not entirely sure I like that they empathize environmental policies as their main thing...but it sounds better than the Republicans or Democrats. I still think it is important to use resources effectively and not be wasteful.....and I think hemp should be used much more since it can be used to make lots of frequently used things like paper.

I'm wary of the fact that haidouk doesn't want the thread to go off topic, but:

1) a major meltdown at an outdated nuclear plant after it got hit by a massive tsunami. No people were harmed, though it is too early to tell if some marine wildlife will be.
2) being against genetic engineering because Monsanto do some horrible things is like being against potatoes because McDonalds do some horrible things. The problem is the corporation's methods (using terminator genes), that doesn't mean that the product (genetically engineered seeds or crops) is always unethical.
3) There are already major famines, and population growth will make them worse in the future, that would be cured if we could increase yields, and genetic engineering has lead to dramatic increases in yields.

Sometimes I think the anti-corporatist politics goes too far and people presume that anything that makes money or has made money must inherently be evil. Really we just need to regulate, rather than ban, these industries where things can go to catastrophically wrong, because most of the time they will benefit us as a species and the planet as a whole, and with proper regulation we can make that 100% of the time. If we ban all the best advances in technology then we'll all end up suffering, which most people don't want.

the worst part is that even the people that want a greener future can see that some of the arguments presented here are complete bull and devoid of any actual verifiable connection to reality.

Do you mean the arguments I present? Because I can find scientific literature to back up my claims where relevant.

I take it you don't have a very high opinion of those who want a world where human economic activity isn't perpetually strip mining and clear cutting our own life support out from under our own feet. Maybe the fallacy of environmentalists is being optimistic enough to think this trend can be reversed, but the joke ultimately isn't on them as a group specifically, but the human species as a whole for not making it a reality.

Well my issue isn't that there may be valuable uses for nuclear technology or biotechnology. Its just I don't think we can take the risk, because big government and corporations have proven they care more about scale and profit than they do safety and the future health of the planet. I don't think the ocean can handle much more in terms of contamination from nuclear waste and petroleum. They don't even want to make small investments, like build the water barriers higher at the nuclear plants when archaeologists warn them that there's evidence that tide levels have been consistently higher int he past than previously thought.

Monsanto has even gone to the extent of using copyright law to prosecute farmers who's crops are cross pollinated from adjacent fields. It forces farmers to buy their seeds for fear of liability, and they aren't even allowed to save seeds from crops that aren't self-terminating. Were relying on one entity, more and more, for our food. I don't really trust government and corporations with our food supply this way, and they're driving down seed reserves that would be necessary for recovery if a Monsanto monocrop did fail. I consider abandoning GE altogether, because it leaves people too vulnerable, in that the only way these projects can get funded is through government subsidized mega-corporations that will naturally want to monopolize markets. As well, they value profits more than what the social consequences of toying with nature might do if approached the wrong way.

I think a lot of the information about Fukushima is white washing. Over 1000 pounds of plutonium and uranium rods melting into the earths crust just doesn't happen without serious repercussions. Really we could be at the very start of a mass extinction event, and were completely oblivious because the media doesn't want to create a panic. I don't really know how bad it is, but I don't really buy that there weren't any casualties. Radiation creates casualties through cancer and miscarriages over a more gradual period of time than just the initial contamination event.

Last edited by JNathanK on 08 Sep 2012, 8:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.

no, i am largely in agreement with your post,
sorry for not making that clear.

and jnathank, i care a lot about the enviroment, i have helped throughout my proffesional life to bring green energy to the market.

but there is just so many different kinds of all the different technologies you mention,
it is impossible to say anything is inherently good or bad, independent solutions and methods carry different challenges and risks.

liquid thorium reactors are safer in a different way than simply more realiable and with a lot of failsafes built in, it is simply physically difficult for anything to happen when it needs active energy to even stay functional, seconds after that stops, so does the reactor.

Some big corporations have (Monsanto, Dow, McDonald's), but there are many big corporations that do care about the environment and sustainability. I would suggest that Microsoft are a good example- look at the good done by Bill and Melinda Gates with their money.

The Republicans scare me a lot but now that it's looking unlikely that Romney will be elected in Michigan I'm leaning towards voting third party.

To be honest, I have to read up more on the Bill and Melinda gates foundation for myself. I often hear about what good they're doing in the world on NPR, but I always have a natural distrust of any perception that's being forced really hard in the media.

I'm planning to do that in the next election - 2016. Right now I want to give Obama a second chance and not ruin his chances - and risk a Romney win - by voting third party. But I'm disappointed in the Democrats overall, and third parties - Green or Peace and Freedom - are looking better every day. In fact, in the recent primaries I voted third party for every position they competed in except President.