First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Should destruction of the environment be considered a crime against humanity?
Posted 4/25/14

shuyi000 wrote:

Technically...we are part of nature...
... So basically...it is nature destroying itself...


not exactly.

humans can't damage the environment through natural action. it's through unnatural action, that the environment can be damaged, like inventing a nuclear reactor or industrialism, which are all unnatural; as in, these things would have never appeared on Earth if humans didn't manipulate the material to create such things.
12459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 4/25/14

shuyi000 wrote:

Technically...we are part of nature...
... So basically...it is nature destroying itself...


Well, no. I don't think we can destroy nature. I do think we can alter it enough that it is no longer compatible with human life.
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 4/26/14

GayAsianBoy wrote:

not exactly.

humans can't damage the environment through natural action. it's through unnatural action, that the environment can be damaged, like inventing a nuclear reactor or industrialism, which are all unnatural; as in, these things would have never appeared on Earth if humans didn't manipulate the material to create such things.


If we are a part of nature... then everything we do is considered natural...
We are not doing anything supernatural after all...




anchore wrote:

Well, no. I don't think we can destroy nature. I do think we can alter it enough that it is no longer compatible with human life.


If we are part of nature and we alter it enough that it is no longer compatible with human life...
...Is that exactly what it means by "nature destroying itself"..?
786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / new york
Offline
Posted 4/29/14 , edited 4/29/14
the worst part about climate change is that the evidence has slowly built up, to the point now where all scientists agree that it is in fact occuring, yet people still deny it because they don't see any huge climatic anomalies (which would not occur until it's much to far to reverse the effects of climate change). people are misinformed and lied to by "news" networks which will eventually result in global catastrophe.

the main reason the media isn't honest and forthcoming about this issue is because it is corporate owned, and large corporations (including those that own cable news networks) would be hurt economically by environmental reforms. because of this, they report on the issue as if it's actually up for debate whether climate change is real. they would rather misinform an entire country and put the world in jeopardy in order to save a few bucks, which is beyond sickening in my opinion.

just a side note, scientists have concurred that the atmospheric CO2 content must be under 350 parts per million in order to maintain a stable enough environment best fit for human life. this earth day it was recorded to be over 400..... HAPPY EARTH DAY i found an awesome article on this if anybody gives a crap: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/carbon-dioxide-climate-change_n_5187844.html
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/29/14

GayAsianBoy wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:

Technically...we are part of nature...
... So basically...it is nature destroying itself...


not exactly.

humans can't damage the environment through natural action. it's through unnatural action, that the environment can be damaged, like inventing a nuclear reactor or industrialism, which are all unnatural; as in, these things would have never appeared on Earth if humans didn't manipulate the material to create such things.


The weird thing about a "nuclear reactor" is that such a thing *did* happen in nature. We have no reason to imagine it's impossible to find a large uranium deposit, and in such a large deposit, at some point there was enough concentrated uranium to produce a natural fission event. Enter Oklo in Gabon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo

The fact that we take that excess heat and turn it into steam to power turbines doesn't change the fact that natural nuclear reactors aren't just possible, they have existed.

12021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/1/14 , edited 5/1/14
I'm not really sure that I'd categorize it as a 'crime against humanity' because generally that supposes that by some international structure 'we' could simply hold a certain upper global or national class responsible and therefore pressure them into less environmentally destructive production and manufacturing practices while also conceiving of humans as a unified entity bound to each other by universal laws other than at a level of appearances, but humans are definitely treading towards a future in which environmental decimation through the depletion of resources, both inorganic and organic, and alteration through excess carbon emissions and the dominant forms of agricultural methods are going to have a long-term negative impact on the quality or even possiblity of life for much of the global population and other species.


The ones who are going to be most disproportionately impacted by this are those of the global '99%' who already are, such as in less or still developing countries and continents that are exploited as a cheap and expendable labor-force, e.g. India, China, Pakistan, Africa, Central and South America and through various ways will eventually spread to the developed regions; think of the possibility of a generalized dystopian and authoritarian future such as those that are depicted in the film Cloud Atlas. Sure, there will be 'progress,' including that of the technological kind which can potentially extend lifespan or cure certain disease and illness, but at what cost? Who's going to reap the benefits from it or will even be able to afford it? NFTS is definitely on the right track in identifying part of the cause of this environmental destruction with corporations, but what the slightly left leaning media and ecologists wont tell you is that this excess manufacturing which creates all sorts of detrimental by-products or effects in these processes is inherent to the global capitalist social relation, i.e the relations of production and distribution, which is an economy where profit is not only the motive for this upper class but an absolute necessity in the determining factors of practices so as to prevent particular burdens to profitability, generalized economic recessions and outright collapse, which in the era of globalization and an integrated world economy extends beyond the borders of any single nation-state and domestic economy and is actually part of the reason why various states in the past, among other things, have sought expansion through militarism and ignited World Wars.

Not to romanticize them whatsoever, but never has any historical economy prior to the inception and proliferation of capitalisms produced so many diverse and self-obsolescing commodities en masse as that of capitalism; some examples of this would be how it is that products are arbitrarily designed and introduced into the market with the demand for these products being induced by marketing campaigns and the construction of consumerist cultural identities revolving around such and such product line, like as in how Apple generates a cult and releases a slightly revised product with hardly any real innovation that couldn't be implemented through a firmware update on an almost annual basis while presenting itself as the epitome of 'humanity' (man, that commercial that co-opted Pixies' 'Gigantic' is just the worse) or the major vehicle manufacturers releasing new models of cars on a thoroughly similar paradigm. None of this means that I'm opposed to industrial or mass methods of sustainable production and technology per se, rather than our needs and desires being induced and fulfilled by the logic of profit accumulation and the power relations that correspond to it

From a strictly economic perspective and not that of an ethical perspective or the future trajectory of climate change and such, rigid environmental regulations and reforms designed to minimize the impact of industrialism are going to hurt capitalists and corporations, then workers, entire industries and then eventually the world economy as a whole. So, I think that instead of seeing it as how one particular country should be held more responsible than others, i.e. China, when China has become of the manufacturing and exportation epicenter for virtually every domestic and transnational corporation so they could evade more organized labor forces and laws that were implemented because of the historical threat of class struggles, or framing capitalists and corporations as simply greedy who then need to be constrained by pro-environmental legislations, 'we' should be questioning the fundamental basis of political-economic relations (which have their own structural dynamics and mechanisms that cannot be constrained for prolonged periods of time, with the interests of the state and capital often mutually constituting and reinforcing the other) in and of themselves and pursuit practical and radical alternatives that aren't modeled on previous blatant failures to do so, more specifically those of the Marxist-Leninist type.

The problem with the institutionally entrenched 'left' is that they claim to want their cake but eat in the process, and being that more than a few of the prominent ones know this and actually have a background in radical politics they have to dress everything up in rhetoric and discourse that's supposed to appeal to the disenchanted portions of society while never really actually doing anything about it or critiquing the roots of these effects. So yeah, if anyone is interested in a more radical take on ecology, I'd suggest looking into social ecology or the writings of Murray Bookchin while not letting the either being the primary intepretative lens which informs you of how to perceive particular and general social issues and of the means to proceed forward so as to collectively overcome them. Imo, 'we' should be discursively and practically deconstructing binaries so as to open up new possibilities and experiences that aren't entirely preoccupied with the preservation of the old or end up resulting in collective disempowerment through the mediation of currently-existing institutional power structures.
17710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 5/3/14
Yes, major corporations should be tried for pollution. And by corporation I mean actual people, also they should be tried strictly because too often decision makers are left off easily for their crimes

Paying a fee for not following the legislation on pollution just doesn't cut it because it's just another cost that corporations will have to spend. It's gotten to a point where there is a price on air: If major polluters need to produce more output, they will pay to pollute more air. There are many things that are crimes against humanity. I'm not a scientific major or anything, but it seems like pollution goes through a process of built up. Everyone will experience the long term effects, but not everyone experience the immediate effects, which brings me to my next point. Who are immediately effected by these externalities? Certainly not the CEOs of Nike living in Beverly Hills. It's the poor. Just look at the villages in Indonesia where piles of shoe rubber are being dumped and burned
Posted 5/3/14 , edited 5/3/14
I don't know if you've noticed but the big investments as of late are actually those gearing towards environmentally friendly-ism, there is generally a large competition going on amongst companies on inventions towards cleaner living. It might seem as though huge corporations have all the power but it's actually you and what you all seemingly want is consequentially what they want to be at the forefront providers for. I haven't been doing any reading lately regarding this but if you are a student at the moment i would definitely recommend you choose the path of working towards a degree that will have you working for one of those renewable energy companies.
Sailor Candy Moderator
215400 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 12/28/15
"Year-end cleanup. Closing threads with no activity since 2014."
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.