"Let’s rip out of the ground every rare earth metal we can and turn it into batteries."
And as my brother (now a doctor of Geology*) could tell you, doing this destroys - for ever - the fertile soil the REMs are extracted from. That's not mentioning the lakes of heavy metal-laced pollutants produced in making the batteries. China has districts, access restricted of course, where there are literal real lakes of heavy metals and other stuff all mixed up into some kind of sludge with a leaden sheen.
Because baby needs a new iPhone every year.
Actual real environmentalist policies would immediately wreck post-Cold War globalist capitalism since they'd have to favour domestic production of food, and all the industries that goes into food logistics (roads, railroads, labs, harbours, ships, trains, cooling/freezing units, dairy handling alone is a nightmare when you think of the details and so on). To say nothing of the building/construction sector. We at least have forests made up out of material - imagine a 70 000 000 pop. UK trying to get by on domestically available materials.
And it is at this point the Greens of today jump onto the "we need to be fewer"-idea of yore. While supporting massmigration of people from the most proliferate populations on the planet.
When I say liberals, greens, feminists, and so on have the intellectual maturity of toddlers, I ain't jestering.
*Just got to brag about him a little. Who would have thought that the guy who had so low attendance in compulsory school he didn't even qualify for a failing grade (!) would make himself an academic career involving going on international top-tier conferences before he'd even netted his first doctorate degree? Plus a wife and three kids on top of that. Puts my incessant griping into perspective, it does.
If we want to live in a way that differs substantially from scrabbling around in the dirt whilst trying to avoid being eaten then we have to make quite significant environmental 'impacts'.
A major factor is the tendency to equate "natural" with "good". It can be. But not always.
It's hard to see how 'nature' with all its gore and steaming entrails, parasitic mind control fungi and the like, always represents a superior state of existence.
Nature is more like the Garden of Bleedin than the Garden of Eden.
So it's right (and only natural - for how else are we to describe our minds as anything but the product of nature?) that humans seek to control their environment to their advantage. Plants and animals do this too, but they can't think about it.
The problem is whether that control will ultimately lead to our downfall. That's what we need to avoid if possible.
The whole "climate change" thing is just one of the more unsubstantiated potential ways in which we can fuck things up.
I view the whole thing, industry vs environment, through the lens of the moral code called "Allemansrätten":
Use, never abuse.
Same principle as when rearing children or educating, really:
Correct, don't wreck.
My brother and his fellows have a heck of a time trying to get politicians to understand that it is better to let industries remain where they are and "cofferdam" around them to protect against spills and such, than it is to move them to a new area and turn the old lots into housing districts.
The politicians, the banks and such all only see monetary profits. Brother mine sees PFAS, ftalates, PVC, kreosote, dioxin, chromium, lead, kadmium, solvents, and so on currently locked into the soil - soil that will be disrupted from construction and thus released into the aquifers.
Because under capitalist logic, the land is "worth money" because the town that the industry was built outside of has been expanded so it engulfs the industrial district.
Money cannot be allowed to be the primary decider, because the chemicals do not care and once their in the water cycle, there's no way we can get them out, nor can we do anything about how they accumulate and affect our genetics in consecutive generations.
Control is precisely what capitalist industry /doesn't/ want to do with emissions. On the other end of the scale, the Green communists wants to control precisely the wrong things the wrong way.
“Green energy” is actually camouflage for “no energy”, which is what they really want. The “environment” is not their concern at all — inflicting suffering is their goal, their religion.
Your material comfort, indeed your very existence, enrages them. You must be enslaved and suffer so that they may achieve their rightful place as world-wide overlords.
Worse comes to worst, I guess we could all try moving our lazy asses and thus use up some of our personal blob stores to grow a potato or two. I hear that sort of thing has been done before.
"Let’s rip out of the ground every rare earth metal we can and turn it into batteries."
And as my brother (now a doctor of Geology*) could tell you, doing this destroys - for ever - the fertile soil the REMs are extracted from. That's not mentioning the lakes of heavy metal-laced pollutants produced in making the batteries. China has districts, access restricted of course, where there are literal real lakes of heavy metals and other stuff all mixed up into some kind of sludge with a leaden sheen.
Because baby needs a new iPhone every year.
Actual real environmentalist policies would immediately wreck post-Cold War globalist capitalism since they'd have to favour domestic production of food, and all the industries that goes into food logistics (roads, railroads, labs, harbours, ships, trains, cooling/freezing units, dairy handling alone is a nightmare when you think of the details and so on). To say nothing of the building/construction sector. We at least have forests made up out of material - imagine a 70 000 000 pop. UK trying to get by on domestically available materials.
And it is at this point the Greens of today jump onto the "we need to be fewer"-idea of yore. While supporting massmigration of people from the most proliferate populations on the planet.
When I say liberals, greens, feminists, and so on have the intellectual maturity of toddlers, I ain't jestering.
*Just got to brag about him a little. Who would have thought that the guy who had so low attendance in compulsory school he didn't even qualify for a failing grade (!) would make himself an academic career involving going on international top-tier conferences before he'd even netted his first doctorate degree? Plus a wife and three kids on top of that. Puts my incessant griping into perspective, it does.
If we want to live in a way that differs substantially from scrabbling around in the dirt whilst trying to avoid being eaten then we have to make quite significant environmental 'impacts'.
A major factor is the tendency to equate "natural" with "good". It can be. But not always.
It's hard to see how 'nature' with all its gore and steaming entrails, parasitic mind control fungi and the like, always represents a superior state of existence.
Nature is more like the Garden of Bleedin than the Garden of Eden.
So it's right (and only natural - for how else are we to describe our minds as anything but the product of nature?) that humans seek to control their environment to their advantage. Plants and animals do this too, but they can't think about it.
The problem is whether that control will ultimately lead to our downfall. That's what we need to avoid if possible.
The whole "climate change" thing is just one of the more unsubstantiated potential ways in which we can fuck things up.
I view the whole thing, industry vs environment, through the lens of the moral code called "Allemansrätten":
Use, never abuse.
Same principle as when rearing children or educating, really:
Correct, don't wreck.
My brother and his fellows have a heck of a time trying to get politicians to understand that it is better to let industries remain where they are and "cofferdam" around them to protect against spills and such, than it is to move them to a new area and turn the old lots into housing districts.
The politicians, the banks and such all only see monetary profits. Brother mine sees PFAS, ftalates, PVC, kreosote, dioxin, chromium, lead, kadmium, solvents, and so on currently locked into the soil - soil that will be disrupted from construction and thus released into the aquifers.
Because under capitalist logic, the land is "worth money" because the town that the industry was built outside of has been expanded so it engulfs the industrial district.
Money cannot be allowed to be the primary decider, because the chemicals do not care and once their in the water cycle, there's no way we can get them out, nor can we do anything about how they accumulate and affect our genetics in consecutive generations.
Control is precisely what capitalist industry /doesn't/ want to do with emissions. On the other end of the scale, the Green communists wants to control precisely the wrong things the wrong way.
May they all receive 98 oktane enemas!
“Green energy” is actually camouflage for “no energy”, which is what they really want. The “environment” is not their concern at all — inflicting suffering is their goal, their religion.
Your material comfort, indeed your very existence, enrages them. You must be enslaved and suffer so that they may achieve their rightful place as world-wide overlords.
It does end up looking like that, even if that's not the conscious motivation for all the green-do-goodiness that abounds
A wind turbine in every yard! Because spring is entirely too loud.
Just more ways I can annoy the neighbours
Worse comes to worst, I guess we could all try moving our lazy asses and thus use up some of our personal blob stores to grow a potato or two. I hear that sort of thing has been done before.
And potatoes make for a wonderful drink, too!
Haha
I certainly need to work harder on my blob storage
to know what is going on in their heads google "bonhoeffer on stupidity"...