Fundamentalists 'threaten scientific progress'

[Bernie Gunther]

You mean the stuff equating environmentalists with fundamentalists?

 

[hundredthmonkey]

You mean the stuff equating environmentalists with fundamentalists?

Yes. Why is it we can take an idea like environmentalism and make it sound like nazism?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yes. Why is it we can take an idea like environmentalism and make it sound like nazism?

Could you possibly expand a bit on that? I'm not really clear about what you're saying.

For example, do you think the stuff Robert May was saying sounds like Nazism? Or do you have some other environmentalist stuff in mind here?

 

[pbman]

You must be a total loser.

Only a loser needs two cracks at the same post.

 

[pbman]

This is a definite contender for the most stupid statement I've ever encountered. How long is the list of people with plenty of money who've lied and bullshitted to get more, exactly? I'll start the bidding with Robert Maxwell.....

Grow up.

If you had read anything but propaganda, you would know who the bad guys are here.

 

[hundredthmonkey]

Could you possibly expand a bit on that? I'm not really clear about what you're saying.

For example, do you think the stuff Robert May was saying sounds like Nazism? Or do you have some other environmentalist stuff in mind here?

I was saying that all ideas should be open to question. My point being that fundamentalism kills thought.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I was saying that all ideas should be open to question. My point being that fundamentalism kills thought.

Well yes, that is rather the point of fundamentalism.

But how does this make environmentalists like Nazis? I'm finding this a bit hard to follow I'm afraid.

 

[laptop]

Sticking to the idea of fundamentalism as presented in the first post. Can we go there or what?

You mean, as presented by a Guardian journalist apparently subjected to some heavy spin, as discussed at length in the thread before you arrive. Which spin some people on this thread are investigating.

Sure. you can discuss whether there are elements of "environmentalism" that are "fundamentalist". But any discussion of whether "some A = B" has to be founded on clear interpretations for "A" and "B", doesn't it?

I propose that the journalist had put no thought whatsoever into what "fundamentalism" is and was therefore victim - or accomplice - of an attempt - not Robert May's - to make "environmentalism" look bad by associating it with [random bad word].

And your response to this is...

 

[hundredthmonkey]

Well yes, that is rather the point of fundamentalism.

But how does this make environmentalists like Nazis? I'm finding this a bit hard to follow I'm afraid.

I think a person with your experience and knowledge feigns understanding. Oil companies spend substantial amounts protecting their position, so you can get Shell purporting to spend money (and they do) on green technology. Its lip service. Because those same companies invest in exploiting third world countries and paying others to present what they do as environmental, they spend millions on presenting themselves as environmentalists - eg Shell Oil can have huge investments in Nigeria which lead to many Africans being killed while Shell pays corrupt individuals in Government to protect their investment by providing armed forces to kill locals who threaten Shell. But it takes a certain fundamentalist viewpoint to argue that this is good for Africa.

Or you can get a huge pharma that controls an entire country because it is poor and it provides vaccines and drugs that the people have to use because some corrupt president has said it's OK. That's very real. Perhaps not on the front pages of our press.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think a person with your experience and knowledge feigns understanding. Oil companies spend substantial amounts protecting their position, so you can get Shell purporting to spend money (and they do) on green technology. Its lip service. Because those same companies invest in exploiting third world countries and paying others to present what they do as environmental, they spend millions on presenting themselves as environmentalists - eg Shell Oil can have huge investments in Nigeria which lead to many Africans being killed while Shell pays corrupt individuals in Government to protect their investment by providing armed forces to kill locals who threaten Shell. But it takes a certain fundamentalist viewpoint to argue that this is good for Africa.

Or you can get a huge pharma that controls an entire country because it is poor and it provides vaccines and drugs that the people have to use because some corrupt president has said it's OK. That's very real. Perhaps not on the front pages of our press.

I'm still not understanding how this makes environmentalists like Nazis. Sorry if I seem obtuse, I'm afraid I just don't get the connection.

 

[hundredthmonkey]

I'm still not understanding how this makes environmentalists like Nazis. Sorry if I seem obtuse, I'm afraid I just don't get the connection.

Let me try it this way - environmentalists see people, particularly african people getting in the way of their envirnonment. Exterminating those people leaves the environment and its animals to get on with what they do naturally without pesky non white people eating valuable resources, burning up fuel sources and threatening animal species which are better allocated to white people who are going to need them because predictions says that the world is nigh... Which is why we can let a plane load of african children die every day from something as preventable as starvation.

 

[laptop]

Let me try it this way - environmentalists see people, particularly african people getting in the way of their envirnonment.

Which environmentalists? Or do you mean conservationists?

Exterminating those people leaves the environment and its animals to get on with what they do naturally without pesky non white people eating valuable resources, burning up fuel sources and threatening animal species which are better allocated to white people who are going to need them because predictions says that the world is nigh...

"Exterminating" is a rather serious word to use. You wouldn't be able to point to just one environmentalist who's called for, or even just condoned, this?

Which is why we can let a plane load of african children die every day from something as preventable as starvation.

The death toll is terrible.

But how does this sentence follow from anything else you wrote?

How do "environmentalists" (which environmentalists) let this happen?

How do you let it happen?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Let me try it this way - environmentalists see people, particularly african people getting in the way of their envirnonment. Exterminating those people leaves the environment and its animals to get on with what they do naturally without pesky non white people eating valuable resources, burning up fuel sources and threatening animal species which are better allocated to white people who are going to need them because predictions says that the world is nigh... Which is why we can let a plane load of african children die every day from something as preventable as starvation.

Ah OK. I see where you're going. Which environmentalists is this meant to apply to though?

1) All of them?

2) Only the ones who talk about carrying capacity?

3) Ones who also advocate 'lifeboat ethics'?

4) Ones who also advocate white supremacy?

5) Only ones who actually advocate genocide against Africans?

I offer those categories as illustration only, and feel free to define which environmentalists you mean in your own words, but I really would suggest being more precise and providing some evidence to support your definition.

I think it's safe to say, if you aren't careful to be clear about precisely *which* environmentalists you mean when you say stuff like that, some of them may, quite understandably, get really rather angry with with you about being lumped in with white supremacists and advocates of genocide.

So please do clarify.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's all you've got, isn't it?

Just a "rollseyes" smiley and an empty head that can't (rather than won't) answer any question without fucking off to another board to get an answer.

Sadsack.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Let me try it this way - environmentalists see people, particularly african people getting in the way of their envirnonment. Exterminating those people leaves the environment and its animals to get on with what they do naturally without pesky non white people eating valuable resources, burning up fuel sources and threatening animal species which are better allocated to white people who are going to need them because predictions says that the world is nigh... Which is why we can let a plane load of african children die every day from something as preventable as starvation.

I think it might be useful to take this to it's own thread, because I think, like the spin in the Times and Guardian, it derails the discussion away from the many interesting and valuable things that Robert May actually did say.

So here's a new thread about the issues you appear to want to discuss.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=142360