Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 12:51:03 GMT
So most think XR are daft and do daft things - well perhaps, up till now the shock value of the event appears to have been a big driver in their choice of demo. Sadly the media focus is on the circus and not the issue at hand. The lack of foresight demonstrated (and an inability to control a fire-hose) has lead to ridicule, which is a pity since pollution of the environment is easily the most serious issue to face humanity since the best way to avoid getting eaten.
"Many critiques of global warming suggest that the problem is rooted in consumption. In other words, they argue that global warming is down to individuals and each of us has a responsibility to manage our own carbon footprint by recycling, using less electricity or water, or driving less. While doing these things is by no means a bad suggestion, this fundamentally fails to get to the heart of the problem. Take for example recycling. Whilst in theory this process could scale back plastic pollution of the soil and the ocean, or even off-set the impact of producing plastic, reality tells a different story. In the August of 2018, councils revealed that two-thirds of the plastic they received is un-recyclable, with particularly black plastic being all but impossible to recycle. As such the intent of individual consumers does not matter here. Whether they recycle or not, the statistics suggest that at least two-thirds of plastic in Britain necessarily go to landfill.
It is clear therefore, that critiques focusing on the individual cannot solve the crisis as it confronts us. What is required is a systemic approach."
I can't see any flaw in the above statement.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 19, 2019 13:30:47 GMT
Your flaw is that reducing consumption WILL reduce waste including stuff that can or can not be recycled. Anyone who consciously cuts down on consumption generally will inevitably be more focussed on what they DO consume, including it's packaging and construction materials, particularly plastic. It's a good ball to start rolling and far better than dubious "use as much as you like, it's ok if you recycle" out of sight out of mind approach.
It's absolutely in the hands of the individual to cut down on buying crap they don't need. Of course if everyone did it there would be a world recession the like of which has never been seen and that's the elephant in the room.
I regard the whole flow of consumerism an unstoppable force, we're doomed. The type of sci-fi where the world is a desert with biospheres is the inevitable future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 13:59:51 GMT
Your flaw is that reducing consumption WILL reduce waste including stuff that can or can not be recycled. Anyone who consciously cuts down on consumption generally will inevitably be more focussed on what they DO consume, including it's packaging and construction materials, particularly plastic. It's a good ball to start rolling and far better than dubious "use as much as you like, it's ok if you recycle" out of sight out of mind approach. It's absolutely in the hands of the individual to cut down on buying crap they don't need. Of course if everyone did it there would be a world recession the like of which has never been seen and that's the elephant in the room. I regard the whole flow of consumerism an unstoppable force, we're doomed. The type of sci-fi where the world is a desert with biospheres is the inevitable future. The notion of environmental change at the level of the individual is not dismissed: ...' While doing these things is by no means a bad suggestion '... the author of the passage makes the point that fundamental change is outside the ability of the individual to alter to any great degree: ... ' councils revealed that two-thirds of the plastic they received is un-recyclable, with particularly black plastic being all but impossible to recycle.' Thus, it is incumbent on the producer of the offending material to effect meaningful change. Do you prefer 'Logan's Run' or 'THX 1138'? Or perhaps the latecomer 'City of Ember'...
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 19, 2019 15:54:24 GMT
I quite liked the Ben Mickey one, "This other Eden" which deals with the commercialised move to Biosphere's.
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Oct 19, 2019 17:49:04 GMT
Mad max gets my vote.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 19, 2019 17:55:43 GMT
"In a future where all flora is extinct on Earth, an astronaut is given orders to destroy the last of Earth's plant life being kept in a greenhouse on board a spacecraft."
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Oct 19, 2019 17:58:10 GMT
It is clear therefore, that critiques focusing on the individual cannot solve the crisis as it confronts us. What is required is a systemic approach." I can't see any flaw in the above statement. Neither can I. The ideal solution would be a huge reduction in population globally but this is contrary to the requirements of a capitalist economic system and I can't exactly picture Extinction Rebellion supporters queueing up to be sterilised. As things stand, Extinction Rebellion supporters are no different to anyone else. A significant amount of them will drive to work in their cars in order to save money to have holidays in foreign countries to which they will travel by aeroplane. They just think that nobody else should do this.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 19, 2019 18:43:30 GMT
Just 2 seconds in, watch him kick the bloke climbing up:
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 19, 2019 19:08:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 19, 2019 19:18:02 GMT
Extinction Rebellion = Tax Fraud?! I thought the video below well worth watching.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 19:22:31 GMT
Why did they write "critiques" rather than "critics"?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 19, 2019 19:24:44 GMT
Why did they write "critiques" rather than "critics"? Who can say?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 19:25:59 GMT
I checked and it's correct.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Oct 19, 2019 20:29:17 GMT
Your flaw is that reducing consumption WILL reduce waste including stuff that can or can not be recycled. Anyone who consciously cuts down on consumption generally will inevitably be more focussed on what they DO consume, including it's packaging and construction materials, particularly plastic. It's a good ball to start rolling and far better than dubious "use as much as you like, it's ok if you recycle" out of sight out of mind approach. It's absolutely in the hands of the individual to cut down on buying crap they don't need. Of course if everyone did it there would be a world recession the like of which has never been seen and that's the elephant in the room. I regard the whole flow of consumerism an unstoppable force, we're doomed. The type of sci-fi where the world is a desert with biospheres is the inevitable future. I am with you on this. I do my thing but in truth I am peeing into the wind! I suspect in ten years time things will be in a right bloody mess maybe the large object in space hitting us will be a blessed relief form the overcrowded cesspit we will have created
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 5:18:52 GMT
Extinction Rebellion = Tax Fraud?! I thought the video below well worth watching. Did you read my comment concerning the need to understand the mindset of the writer? "Paul Joseph Watson is an English YouTube personality, radio host, writer and far-right conspiracy theorist. He has been described as 'alt-right' by multiple sources. Although as late as July 2016 he called himself alt-right, he no longer accepts that label and considers himself part of the 'New Right.' Watson's career emerged through his work for conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones. As editor-at-large of Jones' website InfoWars he helped promote fake news and advocated conspiracy theories such as the claim 9/11 was a government cover-up, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, and the New World Order. Subsequently reaching a significant audience, both Watson and Jones altered their focus. Presently their commentary is mainly focused on criticizing feminism, Islam, and left-wing politics. Watson also contributes to InfoWars's talk radio program The Alex Jones Show, where he occasionally either hosts or co-hosts. Watson has been working on InfoWars since October 2002. In May 2019, Facebook barred Watson from using its Facebook and Instagram services." Mr Watson has many subscribers to his youtube channel. I expect he's making a nice pile from that. Of course, he isn't cynical, he's an impassioned and sincere prophet of the truth. Maybe one day you might find an idea of your own. But I doubt it.
|
|