Talk politics.

very much so actually, both in terms of history and theology.

From:

And to the uncommitted 48% of Republicans: What say you?

I would say that someone who complains about overly broad categorizations should be able to distinguish between Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians. Furthermore, whether the earth is warming, cooling, or staying exactly as it is doesn't really change the fact that the modern environmental movement seems to be driven primarily by luddism and and that this is all about tribal signalling rather some "mandate of history".

You might as well ask a Democrat if they are prepared to abandon gun control, or "Sensitivity" politics.

Edited Date: 24/9/15 20:49 (UTC)

From:

ddstory.livejournal.com

As usual, your partisan-driven complete lack of concern for the future of the human race has been duly noted.

From:

htpcl.livejournal.com

Cut the personal crap. NOW.

From:

And the modern climate denial movement or whatever it's called, they're driven by what? Their noble concern for the well-being of Freedom & Liberty and the health of the Invisible Hand of the Holy and Free Market that'll save the world like some kind of new Messiah?

It's amazing how much willingness for perpetual self-destructive delusion some people are ready to exhibit in their short-sighted thirst for coin. What's even more amazing is what a vast number of dupes are prepared to take their Kool-Aid to the last gulp just for the sake of it. Conspiracies? The liberal agenda? The whole scientific community is somehow deliberately defrauding you in order to take your precious dollars? Wow. Just... WOW. And you are talking of luddism!?

From:

And the modern climate denial movement or whatever it's called, they're driven by what?

Faith in technology, lack of faith in authority, the desire to not be left freezing and starving in the dark. The usual selfish drives.

From:

How does a more environmentally orientated modernized economy leave you freezing and starving to death? Are you even not aware of the magnitude of the hyperbole that you've been using?

Lack of faith in authority can be a useful thing - unless it's driven into pathological extremes, as is apparently the case with a large majority of this sort of people. No evidence would ever be enough for them. They've already decided where they stand. It's almost like a cult: opposing authority just for the sake of it. Look at me, I'm such a maverick! I'm a rebel! Har har har! Those millions of brown people living thousands of miles out of sight being drowned in floods or scorched by draught don't matter, since I can't see them on my TeeVee. It's gonna snow in my town this January, so fuck you scientists and your fancy scientific mumbo-jumbo! You know nothing, my gut knows everything.

I feel a thousand brain cells die in my head every time I exchange a few sentences with that sort of troglodyte.

From:

Funny that you mentioned starving (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6271) in the dark (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-u-s-cities-face-more-blackouts-under-climate-change/) and freezing to death (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/09/03/new_study_links_polar_vortex_to_climate_change.html). Or dying of more violent causes (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-climate-change-cause-conflict/).

From:

How does a more environmentally orientated modernized economy leave you freezing and starving to death? Are you even not aware of the magnitude of the hyperbole that you've been using?

Do you really think that we can feed 7,000,000,000+ people without industrial agriculture? Or provide them with anything resembling a "first world" quality of life without plentiful electricity?

From:

Well if we accept the premise that the world is already over it's "carrying capacity" as it is these deaths are a good thing. Fewer people means less impact on the environment.

I reject this line of thinking, which is why I am a "denier".

From:

kylinrouge.livejournal.com

I don't understand the notion of being against environmentally friendly actions on principle. Is it really so bad if we make the world a better place, whatever the reason?

From:

Why are you creating the false dichotomy environmentally orientated modern economy vs industrial agriculture? Is there a fallacy that you are not willing to employ?

From:

That was your response to my argument? Really?

I reject this line of thinking

Frankly, I am not so sure.

From:

Well, perhaps we could start by looking into the problem that half the food the industrialised world consumes, actually ends up at the trash heap.

From:

It's not about environment. That's just a convenient distraction.

It's about wealth redistribution, and whether or not we should let Malthus determine policy.

From:

Yeah sure, it's all about stealing your money. Everyone and everything is after your money.

From:

ddstory.livejournal.com

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

From:

In an ideal world everyone in the supply chain would have perfect information. We don't live in that world.

The very fact that more perishable foods are cheap, coupled with the fact that people need to eat, means that it is generally better to over-produce and than to under-produce. The excess gets discarded because it's a lot easier to toss it than it is to keep it fresh and ship it somewhere else.

Now we could try freezing/canning the excess for future distribution or use as foreign aid but that's an expensive and energy intensive process that's liable to annoy budget hawks and environmentalists alike.

From:

The whole production-distribution-consumption chain is messed up. That is the problem. Not the efficiency of food-freezing systems. And the fact that the business bottom-line (profit) governs food production is what exacerbates this problem. Because it is simply not profitable to feed poor people living thousands of miles away. The income inequalities within and between countries are not helping in that respect, either.

That still does not mean that working in a direction that would at least help mitigate the problem, is not preferable or desirable to simply doing nothing about it - and then wondering how come economic migrants keep flocking to our gates, or how come social and political turmoil keeps generating conflicts that ultimately boomerang on us.

If you really care about your economy, you should be asking yourself the question, which is less costly, ultimately - providing conditions that would allow a larger number of people to feed themselves, or pretending that the current situation is acceptable, and then dealing with the negative economic impact of social, economic, and even nutrition inequality.

It is not a perfect word - yes. But it is not a world where you live isolated from all the rest, either. Our own inaction or improper action would always reflect back on us eventually.

Edited Date: 26/9/15 07:51 (UTC)

From: