Re: OT: U.S. airstrike kills al-Zarqawi

Briarroot wrote:
David Pye wrote:

"Briarroot" <woodsyl@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:128nptl9l13rs64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, how will environmentalist groups react to a push for more nuclear power plants in the US? I can't wait to see the fun! ;-)

Hmmm...I don't know if I'd call it "fun" so much as "predictable and boring," but surely several fringe activist groups like Greenpeace will continue with their long-standing conniption fits concerning nuclear power. I've never been able to ascertain just what they'd propose as an alternative, but I'm tempted to think that that's because their primary purpose is feel-good shock activism rather than quantifiable progess.

Apparently, "environmentalist" is a dirty word for some, but more realistic and rational environmental groups (the Nature Conservancy, for instance) will likely either avoid taking any official stance, or welcome the initiative as another step in the diversification of electrical power sources in the United States.

"Environmentalist" is no more a dirty word than "liberal" and "conservative" are; but because so many people avoid thinking of the realistic and rational people who espouse these philosophies, and tend to focus their attention instead on extremists at the fringes of each group, we find ourselves taking part in debates masquerading as shouting matches. ;-)

I distinguish between "Environmentalist" and "conservationist" (of which
I are one). "Environmentalists" are typically understood to be part of
the eponymous movement which would include Greepeace, Earth First,
Sierra Club, and the Al Gore Fan Club. It is probably not right to call
them "fringe groups" because they almost *all* are of the same mindset -
that is, the "fringe" constitutes the mainstream of "Environmentalism".
Specifically, these groups hold the following:



1) Mankind is just another animal and not entitled to any special privilege
or use of natural resources.

2) The Earth's health is getting worse and worse every day.

3) The Earth is overpopulated or soon will be.

4) The global warming observed is both bad and mankind's fault.

5) We should act in the abstract interest of the planet and its non-human
lifeforms in some sort of secular act of worship

6) Capitalism, industrialization, markets, and all the rest of what gives
us our quality of life are suspect at the very least and downright
wrong/eeeeevvill/dangerous at worst.

There are indeed more rational kinds of environmentalists who are willing
to consider things like market-based solutions to pollution. But these
people are not in the center of the popular debate. The Environmentalists
are. It's The Inventor Of The Internet that gets his own movie to flog
his cause not the Nature Conservancy, for instance.

I urge anyone who cares about this stuff to read this:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html


FWIW, I take the harsh stance I do here (and elsewhere) because I no
more want the Environmentalists to set policy than I want Pat Robertson
or Jerry Falwell to do so. That is, I do not want policy agenda set by
religionists with a theological motive. And that's *exactly* what
"Big-E" Environmentalism is ... a religion. Real science always seeks to
falsify first. In fact, it's not even considered a meaningful scientific
hypothesis if it is not, in principle, falsifiable. That is, the
scientist is always asking, "How could this theory be wrong?" or "What's
wrong with this data?" or "How is my method incorrect?"

But Environmentalism seeks first to *believe*. To believe that things are
getting worse and worse using the thinnest of data and analysis. To
believe that mankind is at fault in the absence of any real proof. To
believe that modern political and economic stuctures are the cause of it
all even though those structures have done more for mankind in 300 years
than the preceding 9700 ever did. To believe that we have to much, live
too comfortably, and consume too much natural resources even though most
natural resources are increasing or constant in their availability for
use. In effect, it is a secular version of religious aesceticism.

Big-E Environmentalism is anti-rational, anti-science, and anti-human.
Any "rational" debate should therefore identify it as such and condemn it
therefore.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Discover who is REALLY behind the oil prices
    ... > SOARING OIL PRICES? ... > part of the energy crisis now afflicting the U.S. ... > to the environmentalists who have stopped development of our natural ... > imaginary dangers posed by nuclear power plants. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Economics in SF
    ... ::: caused global warming by opposing nuclear power in the late 70s. ... :: fossil carbon output, if only grid power were removed since 1980? ... I'd reckon that environmentalists only have to admit ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Question Id ask Obama
    ... The US has already built over 100 nuclear power plants, ... Sad but true and it reinforces Jack's point, that environmentalists ... really missed the boat on nuclear energy. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Libertarian cartoons
    ... to whom nuclear power is anathema. ... time to time from people whose motives are simple and obvious: ... and there being a bunch of loopy environmentalists out there who are ... him much about what happens in real life. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
Loading