SUV Self-righteousness
Offline There's something that happens with addicts of any drug, it seems, when they're firmly entrenched in their need. They compare themselves to other drug addicts, and find that they aren't "that bad". "I'm certainly not doing as much cocaine as she is" is the common refrain of many a party girl. But what does this have to do with SUVs?
The popular take on the Hummer is that it's a symbol of our environment-killing decadence. Humvees burn more fuel than other cars, and presumably pollute more as a result. Like other SUVs, they're unnecessarily large and opulent.
However, just because the owner of a Prius doesn't pollute at a faster rate than someone with an SUV doesn't mean they aren't polluting. They are. They're still addicted to the same drug as the owner of the SUV.
I've heard people say that they simply couldn't survive without a car, and that may be true for them, since they don't know any other way to live. From supporting family and friends in their efforts to fight addiction, that pattern is extremely familiar. The number of times I've heard people say that they couldn't live without alcohol staggers the mind.
Also familiar is the self-righteousness in pointing at others as "worse polluters" (ie "worse users"). If you drive a car, you're addicted, and you're an oilaholic. We all are. Blaming others and putting the bulk of the blame somewhere else is another common denominator among addicts.
Hey, don't worry, we can go on fuel-cell methadone. No problem. Wind power will save us, sure. How about solar power? That looks promising, doesn't it?
The frank and simple answer is "no". We're going to have to quit the same way every addict does: the drug becomes too expensive, both personally and financially. That includes Prius drivers, who may believe themselves somehow immune from environmental criticism by their car purchase. Not so, fellow oilaholics.
We're in this one together. The type of mirror you use to snort your coke doesn't make that much of a difference.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
I walk almost everywhere I need to go, and bike to most of the farther places. I still pollute. Everything out of foot and bike range means a bus ride.
Guess why I walk and bike and bus? Yep, just like he said, it got too expensive.
We have one hell of a lot of adapting to do before we can get off the oil.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I don't accept the drug analogy at all. The energy need grew inextricably with our society, and oil happens to offer a proportionally cheap and effective payoff. So far. For a person to become dependent on oil, they need only accept the basic function of society; rejecting it means either having the circumstances in place, or making specific choices and sacrifices to practice an alternative way of live, counter to society. If you're able-bodied, and don't need to get anywhere far or fast, you can bike; but not everyone can. If you've got good public transportation, that works; if you have it, and you don't mind giving up controlling your own curfew. Not that these things are bad, but they're not practical for everyone, and they are contra to the culture to which we've been acclimated.
Eventually, the issue will become more forced, and greater numbers of people will seek alternatives to fuel-burning personal vehicles, and the cost to the many people who will continue to operate them will grow.
I hope you guys like seeing my avatar because it looks like I'm not leaving the house... While the rest of you might be able to walk to the grocery store I can't cross the bridge to downtown in my chair. And public transportation? Even in a large city like NY, I'd practically be housebound.
What's with the focus on fuel all of a sudden? I do other things to be environmentally friendly - I always bring my own bags to the store, recycle, live in a condo, buy local foods, etc... but I guess I'm going to have to fit into the 'couldn't survive without a car' analogy since I 'don't know any another way to live'?!
Whatever happened to the idea of focusing efforts on developing reasonable means of more environmental ways of life rather than chastising us with carbon footprints?
I've never heard any of my fellow hybrid drivers claim that driving a more fuel efficient vehicle wasn't polluting the environment. All you have done is knock down a strawman.
Screw the little pussy Hummers. Here's a pic of my new pickup truck.
I fill it with bio-diesel....
Cars are a neccesary evil, especially in my city where everything is spaced out and I don't live in town. Just drive only when you need to and plan so you can get everything done in one trip.
But then again gas in my city is $1.33 so I feel sorry for those in the penis compensators. Oh wait, I don't.
Umm what country are you in Cpt ? Oh a $1.33 a liter I suppose ?
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
Atheism Books.
I'm Canadian $1.33 /litre
Here in the north of Scotland, we're paying up to £1.10 per litre - that's $2.00. And I'm learning to drive... It feels somewhat futile...
=P
When I stated driving at 16, in 1967 gas war prices were 19 cents a gal. Min wage was $1.25. Just some trivia ....
Atheism Books.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
I don´t really see the point in this thread. I guess the initial point was to make some sort of statement about the smugness of Prius-owners (I have to say Matt Stone and Trey Parker did a much better job in the acclaimed South Park episode "Smug Alert", which gives a good piece of asswhopping to San Fransisco as well hehe.
Cars are necessary in a country where everyone needs to live in an enormous house, with really broad streets and really crappy public transportation. I know alot of you folks here go on about the greatness of your respective nations (Jeffrick: Mississauga has perhaps THE crappiest public transport system on the planet, so don´t give me the canuck response of "hey I´m not from the States"
.
There´s a million ways to solve this. Initially I guess the premise of the post was wrong: Thinking that people buy hybrids merely for their own moral reasons seems inadequate. Sales vary with fuel-prices, which seems like the biggest catalysator for alternative ways of transportation.
Having said that I guess my biggest problem with the Hummer is that its really loud, ostentatious, dangerous to both passengers and pedestrians in case of accidents, and additionally a really really really crappy car for everyday use, unless you live in the vicinity of Tikrit.
Nice being here...I´m gonna have to get back to you later
Thunder Bay.
According to my Mac's conversion widgets, that comes out to $5.71USD/gallon. I think you need to invade more countries. That seems to help.
Hey HenrikNorway Mississauga does have a crappy public transit system, how did you know? We are a very well to do city of 750,000 most of the houses and condos here have two or more cars each plus some of the longest and widest streets and highways in Canada, Public transit just can't compete for riders under these circumstances..
About that typical Canadian answer "hey I'm not from the states!" well I am from the states, Brewer, Maine U.S. of A. 1957 to 1976 and thats as "yankee" as one can gee-it, ehyeahp.
My post was based on owning an SUV (not a hummer) without guilt.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
I'm not a city planner, I don't map out transit routes and the company I work at has multiple offices throughout the city. I need a car until all of these things change.
Does it help if I'm driving a more fuel efficient car compared to a 1982 boat-on-wheels? Yes. Does it help if I trade in a 2002 mid-sized car for a new eco-machine? Not after you factor in construction costs on the environment.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
The costs would be about the same. Somebody put out a lousy piece of research a while back claiming the SUV is better for the environment that a hybrid. The article was filled with lousy research based upon assumptions which were easily refuted.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth
As for the Mississauga affiliation: My brother did his BsC @ UofT in Mississauga. As for your SUVophilia: Good for you that you can afford it, but bear in mind that most people in this world make due with cars half the size the one you´re driving around in. I´m sure its really comfortable and all, but as you know there is a word in the dictionary called Solidarity.
At the same time I kind of endorse liberalism, and the right to make individual choices. It is when those choices start to have an impact on other people I get worried. Such as the aggregated use of cars in the western hemisphere. North America may be bad, but that´s merely because of a steady supply of cheap oil, a society based around the production and assistance of cars (remember, most european cities are not very well planned for the use of cars - it just makes more sense using public transportation). So I guess us Europeans shouldn´t be too smug: A man is about as moral as his options allow him to be
ake the life-lie away from the average man and straight away you take away his happiness.
- Henrik Ibsen
We are still going to need to use oil for some time, but we should definitely be cutting back. I do still like the analogy though. Maybe it works better if you compare oil addiction to pot instead of coke? Wake and bake is not a good way to live, but an occasional toke seems to work fine for many.
It would be good to see more discussion everywhere about realistic public transportation. I was able to live fine without a car in a semi-rural area of Mexico due to extensive public transportation routes. I have a much harder time trying to ditch the car here in Southern Oregon even though I do live in town. And Shelley makes a really good point, we have to take into account those who have mobility issues.
People are going to have to be more willing to share space and time with others before any change happens though. It is going to take some form of pain and suffering before people are more willing to share.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
... the growth of which depended entirely on the Green Revolution (ie intensive farming) which relies on petroleum and natural gas. As soon as we started using the drug, we needed it. I doubt India would have the population it does now without Green Revolution farming. We need oil because we use oil. That's why I use the drug analogy.
Exactly. My point being that we are unprepared for a reduction of our collective available energy.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
You would housebound for sure - the state of public transportation in North America is generally terrible. My point here is that WE have become dependent upon this oil infrastructure for the way we live (which only exists because we have this extra available source of energy), not specifically that we're terrible people for using oil. I personally don't think, for instance, that there's a big difference between driving a Hummer and driving a Prius ecologically speaking. With the amount of oil we probably have available to us, we're predictably going to transform all of it into air pollution. So it doesn't really matter at what rate we do it, frankly. (However, someone noted that a modern engine is better than an old 1982 boat, and they're absolutely right.)
The sooner it becomes expensive, the sooner we won't be able to pollute at a rate that causes our environment to become uncomfortable to us.
I'm obsessed with energy, so for me, it's not "all-of-a-sudden", but you probably mean in general?
It wasn't my intention to chastise, but I can understand why you would feel that there was an attack in there. Developing reasonable ways of life would be wonderful. I just think they'd be disappointing for those people who still think we're going to have flying cars.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
This is closer to my point. There's no reason the driver of an SUV should be considered any less "ecologically friendly" than someone with a Prius, given modern engines and the difference in emissions therefrom.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Absolutely true. The way we have things set up, we don't know any other way to live. That's my point. There's no blame, here (seriously, are you guys doing this on purpose to help me illustrate the common reactions of addicts to intervention, or is this unintentional?). We're all in it together, and we're going to need unprecedented ingenuity to resolve the issue.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
(well, one last trip there: This may be the air-car of the future.)
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
The biggest complaint I have about SUV drivers is that many of them seem to be as ignorant as a 'deliverance' redneck by tailgating and shining their fucking headlights onto the back of my neck as if I am supposed to go faster for them because I am in their all-fucking-important way.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
My point is that some of this material crap that is bad for the environment enables many of us who are not in perfect health or able-bodied to live. Does anyone that is able bodied have any idea how many disposable non-biodegradable health products someone like me goes through every day? I have at least a 13 gallon trash bag full every three days. Typically it's every day and half - I just happen to not be on IV antibiotics at the moment. Should we just let people die for the sake of reducing emissions or should we focus on more energy efficient means all around?
At the time I wrote that this subject seemed was dominating the 'recent posts' in various threads.
Just some fun Showing cows are worse than cars
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/methane-cow.htm
Factories are also worse than cars. In fact cars are way down near the bottom for contributors to climate change. I really don't understand why people obsess over cars. Sure if you all drive hybrid cars it will pollute less but I’m willing to bet if everyone drove them it still wouldn't make significant difference. I’m sure everyone knows by now about the nickel factory where they get nickel for the electric batteries and how much damage that’s doing. If you are truly concerned about climate change (unlike me) you want to be obsessing about factories not cars. But please don't suggest they close down or swop to some hypothetical hybrid model. I’m sure as humans we are smart enough to have thought up a way to filter out and trap the greenhouse gases although no doubt expensive at the moment.
Disposable non-biodegradable products really aren't that big of a deal at the moment but they will be at some point. Good thing we have biodegradable plastics on the way.
As for oil there is no problem there as it will will run out. Nuclular power sounds big and scary but its not really Its gotten to the point where its cheap and easy and safe and will do very nicely until the pipe dreams of solar and wind power reach there full potential. Hydrogen sounds promising for cars. And don't even mention terrorism as a reason nuicular power would be unsafe, Do you never drive because some day someone may crash into you? You know the risks but you do it anyway because you have no real choice Its the same. Solar and wind are only pipe dreams at the moment.
Over all I would say we know exactly how to prevent all this stuff from killing us, there will be no real problem here when the politcans deside its time to act, the solutions may not all be ideal but they are alot beter than what we have now and will serve until we find better anwsers.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Actually, while that may be true compared to SUVs what most people don't know is that compared to an equivilent Diesel car a hybrid is MORE polluting over it's entire life. When it's driving it doesn't produce as much pollutants in it's exhaust but once it gets junked the batteries are very polluting. Personally I don't drive but my folks have a diesel saloon/sedan. What I'm hoping will get sorted soon is a good hydrogen network so that the hydrogen powered car Honda make can get sold outside California.
Forget about climate change, just for the moment:
Let's talk milkshakes.
Let's say you have a big strawberry milkshake, and you have a Combine...
...And a Swather...
...That are fueled by, go figure, strawberry milkshake. Now, let's saw I've got a straw, and I've also got a great big SUV...
...And just like your agricultural machinery, my SUV happens to run on strawberry milkshake. So, I just reach my straw across the room, and start drinking down your milkshake.
In this rather contrived analogy, what happens when there's no fuel left for your combine and swather because I sucked it all away for my SUV?
Answer: You can't farm anymore.
So, what assholes like jeffrick are basically doing when they openly gloat about their new 4-wheel drive toy they bought to show the peasants how wealthy they are is saying, "My status symbols are more important than your ability to eat food,"
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Is it that time of the month for you Kevin, your takeing seven month old post to comment on. While living in Alberta you wont need to worry about oil supplies or Wheat & cattle untill the 23rd century.
I have a confidence you don't that my fellow engineers will one day develope a non-gass user of a car that is not only viable but that I can FIT into. I don't fit into economy cars nor into over priced sports cars. I fit into my five year old Murano, nicely and without guilt. My plans to buy a newer SUV stopped when my job was shipped off to Redstone Pennsylvania.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
lol but I do have one smallish point, SUV's while pointlessly wasteful they are not the worst of it but they are likely one of the more needless ones. In reallity they make up a tiny piece of fuel use. It is just a question of how much you are whiling to waste. personally I feel there are better things to gripe about. Although you are justified for complaining about them. I supose it is one of the few things the average joe can do to help, that is why it gets so much support. While undoubtedly the production of food is way more important than having an SUV it also require a far larger amount of fuel oil whatever. Most of this goes to making the farm able to produce crops and the packaging of it, in america the proccesing of them as well as the three main crops produced in America need to be processed before they can be eaten. Now you don't have to use so much oil to get the crops growing, there are other ways of doing it, unfortunatly this produces a lower yeild so farm owners shy away from it(the big ones), If an idividual changes to a to a better system they will literally go out of busness as they wouldn't be able to compete with the prices . This is where my problem is. At some point oil will run out, it is a given SUV's or not. SUV's don't really use enough to quicken the process by much. So the real problems are the factories and agriculture. But they are nessicary for us to live the way we do so what can we do? First we need to slow our rate of consumption. Will no one driving SUV's help? yes but not nearly enough. We need to reform the entire agricultural system this unfortuantly increase starvation in third world counties. A better way to create electricity, nuclear should do for now until solar and wind reach there full potential. Hydro electric power also looks very good to me. I know many people don't like nuclear power but in a situation like this I feel it is nessicary. In reality the only thing that will preserve how we live is a new energy source. Yes SUV's are bad but in reality there are far larger things to worry about. To me it is like worrying about a small fire in your living room while down the road there is a fire engulfing your entire neibourhood. Yes the small fire is a problem but it is nothing compared to the one down the road.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Don't fucking bullshit me.
What does what an engineer may possibly be able to do in the future have to do with the vehicle you decide to purchase today?
Answer: NOTHING
So what if in 5 years they invent a truck that is fueled by the clenching of your ass? That changes absolutely nothing about a miserably inefficient beast you buy and operate in the meantime. Oh, boo hoo, you 'don't fit' into a small car. What are you, 10 feet tall? Maybe your ego won't fit into a smaller vehicle, but hey, what Canadian's does right?
Jeffrick, you emphasize everything that is wrong with this idiotic nation.
Oh, and did you hear? Your party's made it official - evolution's 'just a theory'.
Best get on board, eh?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
lol i'm exceedingly tall and I drive a small car no problem, a corsa lite. (the corsa hatch back) If you are so exceedingly fat that you can't drive one... there are other opinions avalible besides a SUV, besides nearly all cars have ajustible seats to acomodate all sizes. Now Jeffrick while I don't think you are clubing baby seal's to death what logical reason do you have for owning one? If you can't afford a get a new/seconed hand car that is fine, no one expects you to go bankrupt, atleast I don't. But when it comes time to get a new car just think what logical reason do you have for owning one? Do you live on a farm? You need one for farm roads etc (obviously refering to the 4x4 type). But if you live in the city or any place with tar roads it is pointless. Even more annoying when there only purpose is the school run. Not only will you be making a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny (seriously I can't say tiny enough, but everyone making thet tiny contrbution?) contribution to the eviroment you will be saving yourself a lot of money on petrol.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
The amish seem to do okay without fuel.
And I own a SUV and love it...makes me feel tall (lil ole me in a big truck) however, once it is paid off we have discussed buying a more economical car. Am I an asshole too?
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Well yes but thats more because every single person in the world is an asshole about something.
But more importantly if everyone farmed like the armish most of us would work in agriculture. We wouldn't have enough free hands for other jobs. Bye bye to everything you like besides plants. But even this is wrong because there would be far lower yeilds so there would be greater starvation. Currently we produce enough food to feed every single person in the world not only to survive but be healthy aswel, it is just poeple don't have the money to buy the food. Take away fuel and that goes down to 3/4 of the worlds popultion and then that is people not having quite enough and even then some people won't have enough to buy the food. So yes the armish do okay for themselves but it is not feasable to feed the world. It is not only machinary that use fuel , fertilizers witch give us those high yields require a lot to make. Could they get the food to you with out fuel? Could the food be packaged with out fuel? Food is more important than you feeling tall. 
But as I have said you driving a SUV doesn't do that much harm although it is a needless waste. The amount of fuel an SUV uses isn't that much over that of a normal car or even a low consumption car to make a huge differance but it is a needless waste.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
So lets say industrialized agriculture came to a halt, are you telling me people are just going to curl into a ball with fists to face and cry...? No, they would be forced to work to get the sustenance they need to survive.
Survival of the fittest and willing?
Horse shit, no literally....horse shit...
within my community, absolutely
Food is a need, I will give you that.
I guess in a nutshell what I am saying is that if push came to shove we would cluster together in little groups and farm to survive relying on our own communities to sustain life.
That is if the sun can still shine through the clouds of our conveniences.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Not really the point but inessense yes people will do what they need to to survive, the point is to avoid that by lowering oil usage giving us more time for a new source to be implemented. That takes a lot of time and money. Geting more time is always valuable. Maybe places like America have the time and money to get it right but what about third World countries. Just a tip crops take time to grow and most people don't know how to farm. There is a lot more to it than sticking a seed in the ground and watering it.
I would prefer not to see a billion people die. The point once again is to avoid that by giving ourseleves more time.
Just one thing natural fertilizers don't work as effectively as artifital ones. So yes we could use them but people will starve. Once again the point is to avoid this. Btw I do think natural fertilizers are the way to go once we figure out how to feed the world with them.
How about a city? How about in places with very little arable land? A lot of people will die somthing we should do everything to avoid.
Yes if push comes to shove we could but wouldn't you prefer to avoid that? That is the whole point i'm making in this thread. We could go the armish route but at what cost. It is far greater than i am willing to pay. Do not waste fuel needlessly. Time is a valuable thing. Give the politicians and scientists as much time as can be given.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
The thing is not everywhere has fertile land to grow and even then there is only a certain amount of things you can grow depending on the climate and the soil. Plus all the space is taken up by massive amounts of concrete and buildings. Ever try growing apples in the middle of the highway? The tree can't penetrate the concrete.
I would take my freshly squeezed orange juice to somebody's small penis or shortness any day.
I am not arguing that we should try to avoid it coming to that. What has me in a tizzy is that it all looks good on paper and in discussion but really? we can't even, as a world community, agree on politics or religion... I don't see much hope for it, really. Contrary to how you view my opinion I do recycle, conserve water, eat fruits and veges grown by local farmers, use energy efficient light bulbs, do bigger loads of laundry to create less loads....
And as I stated in my earlier reply, once I have paid off my truck we plan on getting a more economical car - not to save on payments but to do our part.
I 'get' that every ONE person doing their part is a step in the right direction, I just doubt that we as a species will as a collective 'get' that message in time. And now circle back to my points regarding survival of the fittest...
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
If someday city dwellers were left without any transport of foodstuffs to their habitat I would suggest they begin a mass exodus out of the city or create some way of planting....in parks? In front lawns (yes, even the city dwellers have a lawn)...
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Ok i'm actually impressed I don't see many people even considering food miles. Maybe it is just where is live though. Just something seems wrong about buying apples from another country when your own country or even local comunity produces them. You are right about doubting people paying attention to it, I think that is partly due to conflicting points of view. Example governments want people to use trains but did you know most trains use more fuel per person even when full than most cars. But doomsayers do more harm than good I think. People like Green Peace annoy me to no end. To me it just looks like they want socialism not more environmental awareness. Always talking about the corperations and the institutions etc. Btw I don't view your opinion badly more just commenting in genral why we should avoid being forced into the armish type life.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Great, another thread about how everyone is an enviro-criminal. But rest assured that nothing you do will ever be good enough for environmentalists. From the environmentalist perspective your car is too big, your house is too big, and your family is too big. They wont be happy until everyone is butt-naked sleeping under a tree like the fucking eloi.
So you downsize your car, you move into a tiny place in a cramped overcrowded city, you sacrifice your first-born child to gaia (or whatever), then they say "well, ya know you shouldn't even really have a car, a house, or a family. In fact you shouldn't even be alive". Voluntary human extinction anyone?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I believe that is called the Green Peace approach or atleast that is what I call it. But there are more sesable people around you know. Simiply buying local food when avalible is that outragous? Using energy effiecent light bulbs witch save you money is that outragous? Having a car that saves you money on petrol is that outragous? I am not saying right now but when ever you are planing to get a new car anyway. Would it be to outragous to ask you to not to leave lights on while you are out( if you are in a safe neibourhood) or not in the room whitch btw also saves you money? But regardless I do think you have a piont how much is enough? Personally I say however much you can manage without serious inconveniances. I don't expect anyone to walk to work. I'm not saying don't go on vaction because it is a waste of petrol. I am saying that there are plenty of changes that you can make that save you money don't hurt your life style and help the environment as well. Oh when will the tranny of the environmentalist end.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
This whole thread is about how it's unreasonable to think that things like that matter. It's a typical environmentalist bait and switch. Nobody would get involved if it didn't seem reasonable from the outset. It's all about protecting the earth, good stewardship and all that. You're not against the earth are you? And you're thinking "I didn't know I had to pick sides but since I apparently do I can't very well side against the earth. That wouldn't be good."
Once you start listening to the people and reading the books they write, it's always about population reduction, sterilization, euthanasia, health-care rationing, and now literally taxing the carbon cycle. Taxing everything you do that creates carbon dioxide (which includes breathing btw).Any intelligent person says "wait a minute, that's just eugenics and feudal serfdom".
I think misanthropy should start at home. If you think everyone should live like a serf and die quickly then my reply is "You first!".
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
For me protecting the earth has nothing to do with it. It is a by product. I want to see humans living in a sustainable way. A lot of people will die sooner or later if we don't. I don't care about the cute pandas really not one bit. It is humans I care about. unfortunatly we are effected by our environments so unless we protect them it affects us, simpile logic. Yes there are stupid people out there. For me it seems like the environmental movment has all but been hi-jacked by socialists.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
You might be taking my argument to its most ridiculous extreme, but I can appreciate that. My original point stands: the difference between cars isn't all that great. At this point, we're part of a process that will cause us grief in the future. I'm sure everyone can see that. But there's no point in judging. There really isn't.
Enjoy a hot bath and your easy ride to the grocery store. It's probably not going to stay that easy for too much longer. There is, in fact, a limit to how much we can consume, and it's about to bite us.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
This will be weird coming from a local-food-advocating, all-season-cycling, energy-efficiency freak like me, but Gauche is right (no pun intended). I'll explain.
I'd say it's half-and-half on whether the industrial process to make said light bulbs and their resulting mercury content is better than the improvement in energy consumption.
Doesn't make that much of a difference, really. Having no cars would make a difference. But then, so would having no computers, and look at us. I'm not going to get on a high horse about computers, and I suppose nobody on an internet forum would, either.
You can ask.
That's kind of the problem. What different people consider a serious inconvenience is different. I bike in the winter, but then I think it's fun. It's like skiing on the way to work! But not everyone has a peppy outlook about a daily ritual of near-death experiences.
Here's why Gauche is right: if you're going to get morally indignant about something, it should be something that is clearly morally repugnant. The environmental problem is very clear, but the solutions border on the ridiculous. Recycling? Are we joking? Works great for metal and ... oh, nothing else. Glass can be reused if you want to be really environmental ( http://www.harmonyorganic.on.ca/ ), but recycling it requires a lot of heat, which naturally comes from fossil fuels. Getting upset at someone because they aren't recycling is like getting upset at someone because they don't turn around three times before getting into bed.
Sure, it would be terrific if everyone saw the future clearly, but it didn't happen to the Romans, and it's definitely not going to happen to us.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'm in accord with that. I think the difference between cars is negligible. Environmental problems are systemic. Since changing the system is out of the question, the only option left to resolve the problems is to take away things from the individual that they now rely on and see as necessities.
But taking away those things wouldn't change the fact that industrial trollers scrape the sea bottom leaving dead zones, or that penguins in Antarctica are contaminated with pcb's, or that planned obsolescence increases profitability in manufacturing business models.
So I think that if people want to deal with environmental problems they should start at the top and then deal with my car and my light bulbs when they make their way to the bottom.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Yes, they do - because they only need to feed a relatively small community.
It's a matter of calories, Renee. How many calories/person does it take to harvest crop manually, and how many people do you need to do it? Now, how many calories (gross) does your field produce?
Hydrocarbons are doing almost all of our work for us right now. Without them, we're in big trouble, because suddenly we have to figure-out how to take crops off of our fields while still squeezing-out enough net calories to feed everyone.
No; owning and operating an SUV only makes you selfish.
Gloating about it flippantly and refusing to ever dowsize in order to show-off the girth of your bank account while calling well-reasoned ecologists douchebags would make you an asshole (Hi, Jeffrick!).
I am sorry if this offends you, Renee, but honestly - the North American attitude that everyone is simply automatically entitled to operate an automobile or live in a suburb or have a half dozen children at the expense of the rest of us rather infuriates me.
Y'know, I think perhaps I should do a YouTube video dealing with monoculture agriculture, compromise, poverty and a slew of other things on my mind lately...
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Ah, yes:
'Why should I have to sacrifice!? Make them do it instead!'
*Sigh*
This is why we fail.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940