the green paradox
can anyone believe that there are still folks out there who believe in anthropogenic (man-made) global warming? not only is there no real evidence that global warming is even happening, but there is even less that it could be caused by man.
i love this video, which is widely revered by the logically-challenged. the guy hilariously tries to use a pascal's wager to come to the conclusion that doing something about the global warming problem with undesirable effects is better than doing nothing about the problem and suffering disastrous effects. the problem with this reasoning is that it can be applied to any possible problem. if it should be applied to so-called "global warming", why shouldn't it be applied to all possible problems that have no proof one way or the other? has it been proven that gremlins don't exist? if not, then why not take steps necessary to prevent a militarized gremlin attack? why not "do something" about spontaneous combustion? what about alien abductions, or any other kooky "problems"?
but that isn't all that's silly about this. implied in his reasoning is that the groups responsible for the vast majority of the world's pollution should be the ones put in charge of reducing it. this is a paradox of the environmentalist movement on the whole. almost everyone you might meet of the environmentalist cult believes that governments are the solution to the problems they have been brainwashed to believe in. never mind the fact that governments are by far the largest polluters in the world and are accountable to no one, having the fox guard the hen house seems like a fine idea to them. wouldn't it be better to have the world's most environmentally unfriendly corporations take charge of the cleanup? why not? that would be a step up from governments, because they don't pollute as much.
this is one of the reasons i am skeptical (to say the least) of the environmentalist movement. if they really wanted to save the environment, they'd get real about how to go about doing it. they'd lobby companies with a bad record to change, they'd organize social movements against pollution and encourage boycotts of the worst offenders, they'd stop trying to empower to the greatest polluters in the world (governments) and openly condemn them. it isn't that environmental groups don't do some of these things, but they waste so much time and money with the state. if you want a disaster to become a bigger disaster, then have the state take control. anyone with any sense should be able to see that.
i, on the other hand, am a real environmentalist. i want to stop pollution. i understand that the only real way to curb pollution is to allow a regime of private property to hold accountable through a responsive private justice system, those responsible for the damage done through pollution to the property of others. there's no room for political connections that allow companies or governments to pollute in a system such as that. in the current "system" many are allowed to pollute the property of others through political fiat, and because the court system is monopolized by that very same government, those whose property is damaged have no real recourse and the pollution continues.
as with most things, making the world a better place hinges, first and foremost, on rejecting violence as the solution to problems, which requires a rejection of the state, or institutionalized violence, as a whole.
i love this video, which is widely revered by the logically-challenged. the guy hilariously tries to use a pascal's wager to come to the conclusion that doing something about the global warming problem with undesirable effects is better than doing nothing about the problem and suffering disastrous effects. the problem with this reasoning is that it can be applied to any possible problem. if it should be applied to so-called "global warming", why shouldn't it be applied to all possible problems that have no proof one way or the other? has it been proven that gremlins don't exist? if not, then why not take steps necessary to prevent a militarized gremlin attack? why not "do something" about spontaneous combustion? what about alien abductions, or any other kooky "problems"?
but that isn't all that's silly about this. implied in his reasoning is that the groups responsible for the vast majority of the world's pollution should be the ones put in charge of reducing it. this is a paradox of the environmentalist movement on the whole. almost everyone you might meet of the environmentalist cult believes that governments are the solution to the problems they have been brainwashed to believe in. never mind the fact that governments are by far the largest polluters in the world and are accountable to no one, having the fox guard the hen house seems like a fine idea to them. wouldn't it be better to have the world's most environmentally unfriendly corporations take charge of the cleanup? why not? that would be a step up from governments, because they don't pollute as much.
this is one of the reasons i am skeptical (to say the least) of the environmentalist movement. if they really wanted to save the environment, they'd get real about how to go about doing it. they'd lobby companies with a bad record to change, they'd organize social movements against pollution and encourage boycotts of the worst offenders, they'd stop trying to empower to the greatest polluters in the world (governments) and openly condemn them. it isn't that environmental groups don't do some of these things, but they waste so much time and money with the state. if you want a disaster to become a bigger disaster, then have the state take control. anyone with any sense should be able to see that.
i, on the other hand, am a real environmentalist. i want to stop pollution. i understand that the only real way to curb pollution is to allow a regime of private property to hold accountable through a responsive private justice system, those responsible for the damage done through pollution to the property of others. there's no room for political connections that allow companies or governments to pollute in a system such as that. in the current "system" many are allowed to pollute the property of others through political fiat, and because the court system is monopolized by that very same government, those whose property is damaged have no real recourse and the pollution continues.
as with most things, making the world a better place hinges, first and foremost, on rejecting violence as the solution to problems, which requires a rejection of the state, or institutionalized violence, as a whole.
Comments
tp