Extinction Rebellion

Post Reply New Topic

Well the establishment is not offering a lot of solutions to the climate crisis...so can you really blame people for being upset? I mean yeah a lot of young people are worried about climate change, younger you are more immature you are.

Also if nothing is done, we could very well start dying off in 12 years time perhaps we won't be entirely extinct by then but we will be having a much worse time as humanity...and the problem is plenty of government officials also prefer to chuckle than to take action. That is why all these immature kids are so frustrated.

Regarding the:


But missing one's father's death due to people trying to stop 4.2 million deaths a year world-wide from air pollution due exhaust fumes isn't as heartbreaking and breathtaking as not so doing:

ER trying to hold up the tube in London this morning

https://twitter.com/HollyJoCollins/status/1184713537232556032

At what point did they think Canning Town would be the place to do this?! !

Oh dear,
Another long post. <sigh>

Protesting is fine.
The way they do it is not.

I haven't come across anything/k that suggests the concerns XR have are about the information you have mentioned.
My understanding is that those alarmed by man's/woman's influence on climate change are predominately concerned with CO2 emission, I.E. plant food, rather than actual pollution.
If you have the energy and time, please supply a link to support the reason you included the information.
Please connect the information to XR's manifesto.

It isn't going to change my view of them.
Refer to the following:

Presumably, you have read my previously stated position regarding XR.
This is my opinion and I can't see myself changing it because:
-Their manifesto includes blatant nonsense about global extinction.
-They have no credibility in my eyes.
-They have engaged in unwarranted fear-mongering.
-They embrace misrepresentation/lies to serve their agenda.
-Some are obviously simply attention-seeking.
-Some are solid gold hypocrites.
-Most are young with little life experience.

In essence:
"They have been weighed,
They have been measured,
And they have been found wanting."

Why should I waste my time with them if this is my genuine opinion?
I have better things to do with my time than take them seriously.
Mocking them,
Well, everyone needs a hobby.

BTW, I am not a fan of debate.
I have an active dislike of "devil's advocacy".
I enjoy sharing information with the intention of mutual growth.

Your endless political finger pointing and smug dismissal of different views aren't virtue signaling? Every post you have on this site screams, "Look at me." You have no humility.

"Why are people so unkind."

https://youtu.be/znodcpMzcnA

I have an opinion.
If you don't like it, it is no skin off my nose. <shrug>
If you don't like what I post,
Why read it?
Rather odd, the way I see it.

You do understand what "Virtue Signalling" is, right?


Rather, I think you mean I am:
-Supercilious,
-Patronising,
-Arrogant,
-Condescending,

I hardly think my philosophies are appreciated by most people.
If anything, most would find my honesty disconcerting or even disagreeable, as you do.

As to "humility":


I am so far away from wanting to impress other people, one way or another, it hurts. <wounded>

A wise man once said:
"I am what I am", said Popeye the sailor man.
Errm,
No, that wasn't it.

He said:
"It is better to embrace who we are than pretend false modesty.
It is better to transcend the need to be appreciated.
It is better to ignore being judged.
For we are no more nor no less than we are.
Be honest with yourself,
And you will access the best that you are."

That wise man is me.

"Hubris"?
Who said that!


Be careful, son.
Personal attacks are against WP roolz.

Story on UK news this morning. Two protesters climbed on top of a commuter train in London and announced that the train was not going anyway. After twenty minutes a large and very ugly crowd dragged them off and started kicking the sh*t out of one of them. If other members of the crowd had not intervened, I truly believe they would have beaten him to death... no police to be seen.
No doubt the protester felt his human rights had been infringed... I feel it was Darwinism at work.

Biscuitman put a link up to it this morning, above. I thought the protestors were bad for disrupting peoples' journeys like that, as that is their work and livelihood. I don't see how pissing people off will get them on their side. However, they shouldn't have been beaten up.

I would certainly be pissed off if my commute was disrupted by these sorts of hooligans----no matter what their views are on Climate Change.

I don't believe in "mob rule," though. They should have been held for the authorities, rather than beaten up.

I'm suspicious about the origins of that incident at Canning Town - I think those people could have been planted there deliberately in order to discredit Extinction Rebellion I the eyes of the public.

On a similar note, there was also a guest who appeared on "Good Morning Britain" dressed as broccoli who claimed to be from XR and was asked straight out by Piers Morgan if he was a plant (a joke which he didn't even appear to get!).

That's true, though when I read their main apology message regarding the tube incident and apparently the DLR, it seemed kind of a non-apology.

I'm full of caffeine because I needed the energy to work physically.
I.E. High as a kite.
Keep this in mind.

I'm glad he got out of it alive,
But from a distance, it sounds funny.

There may be a silver lining here:
These fair weathered heroes/protestors might think twice about disrupting the lives of hard working people in the future. Meh.



It's possible.
A "False Flag Event".
But there are plenty of XR members who are capable of stupidity, based on what I have observed. <shrug>

(Apologies as the URL just /\ above /\ here was incorrect before.)


After having read over the years numerous publications of easy reading for me, I thought the BBC article was a rather tidy synopsis ~ but still it was too much information for you. Apologies for which as I was unable to choose a paragraph and put it with a headline such as from another more recently discovered media outlet as follows:

Air Pollution Causes 8.8 Million Extra Deaths a Year
The study, published Tuesday in the European Heart Journal, found that air pollution caused an estimated 8.8 million extra deaths worldwide in 2015, topping previous estimates that suggested rising levels of air pollution caused 4.5 million and 6.5 million premature deaths in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

As for the length of this post ~ it is in response to each of the issues you have listed, which is worth considering for future discussions with longer post writers like myself.


The vast majority of the XR membership protest quite appropriately in the usual way by informing the authorities of the intention to protest, then going on marches, doing pickets and or attending gatherings with placards, banners, public speakers, mime artists and musicians and all that.


I was really rather surprised by this statement as it goes ~ maybe you either overlooked the information itself, or perhaps you weren’t even provided with it at all!


With oil being composed of mainly carbon (C) and hydrogen (H), it is referred to as a hydrocarbon (HC), and when it is refined and used as gasoline, diesel or kerosene by ignition to power combustion driven engines, generators and turbines ~ the exhaust fumes are therefore also called ‘carbon emissions’.

Of all the carbon emissions produced by combustion engines with carbon dioxide (CO2), the most biologically and ecologically toxic are: benzene (C6H6), carbon monoxide (CO), formaldehyde (CH2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and matter particulates (molecular soot and unpaired atoms).

Even though catalytic converters have very much reduced individual toxic gas emissions ~ they have conversely very much in the collective vehicle sense increased air, land and sea pollution with unpaired atoms that I refer to as ‘nano-scale nasties’:

The hidden danger of heavy metals in catalytic converters.

As such we went from the thick molecular scale airway-clogging and lung-blocking smog filled atmospheres ~ that were on the go up until the seventies ~ all the way down in scale to the ultra-fine atomic cell-permeating and system-and-organ blocking atmospheric hazes on the go since the seventies:

‘Nano air pollutants strike a blow to the brain’ and every other cell in the body.

So basically catalytic converters were imagined to be a wonderful ‘green’ step forwards for humanity, but were a ‘nano-particulate infesting’ step backwards session for biodiversity.


Well the fourth principle of the ’XR movement is described on Wikipedia with contextual underlining by myself as follows:

‘4. We openly challenge ourselves and this toxic system, leaving our comfort zones to take action for change.’

And is described on XR website under ‘DECLARATION OF REBELLION’ with contextual underlining by myself as follows:

Our air is so toxic that the United Kingdom is breaking the law. It harms the unborn whilst causing tens of thousands to die. The breakdown of our climate has begun. There will be more wildfires, unpredictable super storms, increasing famine and untold drought as food supplies and fresh water disappear.


On page 11 of Roger Hallam’s manifesto regarding the first of 3 mentions of fossil fuel pollution as follows underlined by myself:

Earth, we have a problem to solve
Societies around the world did not allow the current ecological
collapse. Governments did. Since the 1990s, a false narrative was
promoted around the world that individuals should take
responsibility for their ‘carbon footprint’. Or that ‘it’s the
corporations’, the fossil fuel and other polluting industries that are to
blame. Yet governments are the only institutions with the power, and
the responsibility, to protect us from harm. But they haven’t used that
power.


I wasn’t trying to change your view of ‘them’ ~ just correcting where you were incorrect regarding only one death and someone missing it being as if entirely relevant, and where you were uninformed regarding pollution at least sickening millions and killing millions more people prematurely every year ~ and hence the relevance of the XR movement’s ‘road-block’ protests against that and other abuses against environmental biodiversity.


Yes ~ I have read a number of them.


There is no mention of ‘global extinction’ in the XR manifesto written by Roger Hallam at least ~ only the ‘global catastrophe' mentioned on page 5 in the first sentence of paragraph 3 that can be avoided to some extent by halving carbon emissions by 2030, according to the IPCC, as follows:

The United Nations has estimated that we need to reduce carbon
emissions by half within a decade to have a 50% chance of avoiding
global catastrophe.

If you are referring to that which was written by Roger Hallam though regarding human extinction in the near term on page 7 ~ paragraph 5 ~ of his manifesto; as follows:

This is the first step in transformation: accepting the truth as it is.
Climate and ecological breakdown will kill us all in the near term
unless we act as if the truth is real.

It is a reasonable enough ‘worse-case’ scenario statement when considered in relation with the duration of human evolution ~ what with the ‘long-term’ having involved about 8 million years for the previous evolutions up to the Denisovans and Neanderthals; the ‘mid-term’ involving about 300 thousand years as involving our current evolution, and the ‘short-term’ involving at very least about a hundred or so or a few hundred years if ‘we’ (the species) have not significantly altered our ways industrially and commercially by 2030, in ‘respect’ of the environment:

“The overwhelming evidence of the [2019] IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture,” said IPBES Chair, Sir Robert Watson. “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”


That is quite understandable as some people go for the ‘boon-weaver’ denial of ‘everything’s just wonderful’ state of affairs, whilst others go for the ‘doom-weaver’ acceptance of ‘everything’s just awful’ state of affairs, and everybody else goes for something in-between and others otherwise ~ in an attempt to be faithful to reality, more or less.

I am an ‘inbetweener’ myself ~ in that I am of the opinion that humans need to give up like an addiction being economically and environmentally greedy parasites, and become instead ecologically and technologically wise symbiotes.


Unwarranted no; but exaggerated yes (as doom-weaving) ~ as a balance to the decades long exaggerated assurance mongering (as boon-weaving) of the oil and other related industries:

A recent analysis of more than 100 industry documents conducted by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has revealed that the oil industry knew of the risks its business posed to the global climate decades before originally suspected.

It has also long been assumed that, in its efforts to deceive investors and the public about the negative impact its business has on the environment, Big Oil borrowed Big Tobacco’s so-called tactical “playbook.” But these documents indicate that infamous playbook appears to have actually originated within the oil industry itself.

For forty odd years the oil and other related industries were assurance mongering economic ‘dreams’ (including every treasure on earth not worth having) ~ whilst in reality was promoting an ecological crisis involving people as being and becoming unconsciously, subconsciously and preconsciously habituated into spending more money irrationally, and consuming more resources compulsively:

To maintain our current appetite for resources, we would need the equivalent of 1.7 Earths, according to Global Footprint Network, an international research organisation that makes an annual assessment of how far humankind is falling into ecological debt.


Well that is rather the point of protesting or campaigning for a cause ~ as includes at one extent ‘bandwagon’ protestors who take part more to enjoy themselves and be part of a change (at least from the everyday hum-drum of it all), and along with the others in-between are those at the other end of the extent ~ as being the ‘dedicated’ protesters who take part more to enjoy informing others and bringing about sociological change.


There are of course lesser and greater examples of exemplary conduct in any philosophical, political or religious grouping sociologically, hence there being those who set the emulatory gold standard as are heartfelt and genuine in their everyday living as environmentalists, naturists or both.


And in that young people are gaining more experience of life as is rather the point ~ they want the same to apply for other species of life that are endangered, or are becoming endangered:

The strong focus on species extinctions, a critical aspect of the contemporary pulse of biological extinction, leads to a common misimpression that Earth’s biota is not immediately threatened, just slowly entering an episode of major biodiversity loss. This view overlooks the current trends of population declines and extinctions. Using a sample of 27,600 terrestrial vertebrate species, and a more detailed analysis of 177 mammal species, we show the extremely high degree of population decay in vertebrates, even in common “species of low concern.” Dwindling population sizes and range shrinkages amount to a massive anthropogenic erosion of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services essential to civilization. This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event.


Ah ~ a paraphrase of Verse 27 from the 5th Chapter of the book of Daniel, in the Old Testament Bible, regarding the story of ~ ‘The Writing on the Wall.’

The narrative goes that the unbalanced and arrogant Neo-Babylonian King Belshazzar holds a great banquet during a famine, and whilst drinking wine orders that the gold and silver ceremonial goblets (as taken by his father from the first temple of the Hebrews) be brought to him and his nobles, wives and concubines ~ so that they may get further drunk from them.

Only upon drinking from the sacred goblets ~ a disembodied ghostly hand appeared and inscribed a message with it’s fingers in the plaster of the wall before the king ~ frightening him immensely, and which after many had tried only a renowned Hebrew wise-man could read it, named Daniel, who said:

25.) “This is the inscription that was written: mene, mene, tekel, parsin.
.
26.) “Here is what these words mean:
.
))))) Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.
.
27.) Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.
.
28.) Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

The big problem with your paraphrase is that you have taken and reversed the contextual relationship of the verse from that of the chapter ~ what with the governments of the world being more akin to the unbalanced and arrogant King Belshazzar; the 2018 IPCC report being more akin to the ‘The Writing on the Wall’ to balance things out, and the ’XR lot being more akin to Daniel ~ as they have made the global crisis headline news; ‘what with the world’s governments neither having shown respect for the spirit of life nor either the nature of it’ (just to put a religious slant / spin on it).


With all this (as underlined by myself )‘Here in Australia, we have some dumb "Extinction Rebellion" members.’, ‘Their manifesto includes blatant nonsense about global extinction.’,‘They have no credibility in my eyes.’, ‘They have engaged in unwarranted fear-mongering.’, ‘They embrace misrepresentation/lies to serve their agenda.’, ‘Some are obviously simply attention-seeking.’, ‘Some are solid gold hypocrites.’, ‘Most are young with little life experience.’ and
‘Mocking them, Well, everyone needs a hobby. ’ ~ is exactly what is described as being unacceptable written content on this forum:

While it is acceptable to attack and debate beliefs (political, religious etc) it is not acceptable to make generalised attacks on the adherents of those beliefs.


Yet you post here on the Politics, Philosophy, and Religion pages of this forum, where debate is as established as fish swimming in water, animals walking on land and birds flying in the air, what with the ‘Please read before posting’ page stating quite clearly as underlined by myself as follows:

1. PPR
This is a special forum. It is for debating and as such pretty much anything goes provided it stays within the site rules and the following guidelines. It is more or less freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if some people have obnoxious or ill-informed opinions regarding politics, religion or virtually anything else. People can debate and criticize any religion, atheism, political party, public figures etc. Just because some members may belong to a particular religion (or atheism) or political party, does not exclude it from debate.


Consider then the following from Nelson Strategic Consulting Strategies ~ regarding ‘critical (reflective) thinking’ (as being one’s ability to think objectively without the influence of one’s own biases, prejudices, personal feelings, or opinions and come to a conclusion solely on factual, objective information) and it’s obstructive opposite:

Groupthink is a phenomenon that acts as a barrier to good governance. It is a form of self censorship that causes a failure of critical thinking when the desire for group consensus overrides ones ability or desire to critique / challenge a position, present alternatives or express an unpopular opinion. It is often in play when groups reach consensus without critically examining an issue; there is an illusion of agreement or consensus: “it appears as everyone agrees, so let’s move on.”

Along with a paraphrase of the headline for the above paragraph quotation ~ consider then the 8th technique of the 17 listed to use as a guard against groupthink, and promote ‘critical (reflective) thinking’ instead; as follows:

PROTECTING AGAINST GROUPTHINK: THE 8TH TECHNIQUE OF 17
8. Devil’s Advocate: Appoint or ask someone to play the role of Devil’s Advocate for each issue.

According to Wikipedia then; a “Devil’s Advocate” is:

The advocatus diaboli (Latin for Devil's advocate) is a former official position within the Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith: one who "argued against the canonization (sainthood) of a candidate in order to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentation of the evidence favoring canonization".

So as a Devil’s Advocate my accepted role would have been to address that your report of in Australia you ‘have some dumb Extinction Rebellion members’ was a ‘circular argument’ (a logical fallacy that supposes if the premise is true, the conclusion must be true) with the premise being those ‘who enjoy being on the news’, and the conclusion being because they are the ‘“look at me, look at me” crowd’.

There was no mention of the XR protesters (or the XR organisation) having or not having informed the authorities of the protest in advance ~ so that the authorities had or did not have the opportunity to make alternative arrangements for the emergency services, and also had or did not have the chance to agree to meet the conditions for calling off the protests ~ or else get a legal injunction against those protests.

Although it was reported that ‘One person couldn't reach his dying father before he passed away’, one of the reasons for the road-block protest as being to campaign against pollution was not reported ~ despite it being the fourth principle or declaration of the XR organisation.

Were the obstructed motorists in Australia already knowledgeable of or informed by way of the media or the ‘road-block’ protestors themselves to turn off their car’s ignition to prevent ‘engine idling’, and as such prevent increased carbon emissions as pollution?

So with no example of me being a ‘Devil’s Advocate’ previously in that sense, let us consider the more colloquial sense as according to Wikipedia then:

[A] Devil's advocate is someone who takes a position they do not necessarily agree with for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.

Four months before I was born ~ an older brother of a year and a half died from Bronchial Pneumonia, and since then a brother ten years younger than I ~ suffers from Asthma, as have also several friends that I have known through the course of my life.

The subject of air pollution has therefore been of long-standing relevance to me, as without it people in general and those with respiratory conditions would have a much better quality of life, so protests against air pollution and pollution in general have been and will continue to be in spirit supported by me ~ in that pollution doesn’t just effect humans, but the vast majority of other species of life on this planet also.

This is not then an argumentative or contrary position that I have taken just to debate or explore further your point of view, but one of decades-long relevance (in the familial and social sense) that allowed me to correct you where you were incorrect about the road-block protests not just being '“Look at me, look at me”' groupings, and to inform you where you were uninformed about them more inclusively being campaigns against environmental pollution.

So no example of ‘Devil’s Advocacy’ in that respect either.


Rather than as if like arguing that a cuboid block has either a square or rectangle for its entire surface area ~ I enjoy exchanging information with others on the basis that everyone equally has in the much respected and affirmative sense different perspectives.

Hi, mate,
Long time no see.

I am semi-dyslexic, (seriously),
So I don't read long posts.
With very rare exceptions.

But I am sure you had some interesting things to say.
Some of the speed readers might reply.

XR are a bunch of radical immature dreamers? Hmmm, that explains why I envy and applaud them I suppose .

I am more attracted to the climate strike approach but was dismayed by the narrow demographics it has attracted for it's protests. We had some 60,000 protesters in NYC to show support for Greta's movement. What number would get people to initiate real change, 600,000? 6 million? Would 6 million result in candidates willing run on the issue?