Do something for Earth Day.
April 22, 2001 9:35 AM Subscribe
Do something for Earth Day. Zeldman's recent post talks about doing without television, cell phones and the Internet for an hour. If you're a geek like me who doesn't get out enough, find an event in your area today.
Or join The Earth Day Countermatch in support of industry and technology.
Jeeze. Hard to tell if that's a joke or not. Sounds like the plot of a Ken Goddard book.
posted by bkdelong at 9:56 AM on April 22, 2001
Jeeze. Hard to tell if that's a joke or not. Sounds like the plot of a Ken Goddard book.
posted by bkdelong at 9:56 AM on April 22, 2001
We live way out in the country and so when we're outside, we're OUTSIDE - trees, stream, fields, dogs. :-) When we're inside we're on the computer or cooking a good meal. We only get one television station on our tv and cell phones don't work out here anyway - too many hills. I guess I'd just offer this idea - while you're NOT using your cell phone or computer or television, listen for your OWN inner voice and follow your impulses - those are usually the first to go when we're consistently tuning to things OUTSIDE of us for "information". Your inner voice is smarter than you might give it credit for and usually has a LOT to say! :-D Hell, you can even talk to a tree or the earth if you want - not out loud though unless you're alone. ;-) *grin*
posted by thunder at 10:09 AM on April 22, 2001
posted by thunder at 10:09 AM on April 22, 2001
Hard to tell if that's a joke or not.
Why don't you take some time to read the reasoning behind it all (or watch the Real Video press conference on C-SPAN) to find out? They've got a good point, if you ask me.
posted by frednorman at 10:11 AM on April 22, 2001
Why don't you take some time to read the reasoning behind it all (or watch the Real Video press conference on C-SPAN) to find out? They've got a good point, if you ask me.
posted by frednorman at 10:11 AM on April 22, 2001
I have read the countermarch material. It is strikingly in poor taste. If, as they maintain, they would like to honor those associated with industry etc--not a bad idea--that isw fine. But that they want to do this as a counter to Earth Day is clearly to show that they are right-wingihs in support of unfettered capitalism. Heck, capitalism is ok and I am all for it. But there are those who want govt to control all of our private concerns--abortion, homsexuality, school prayer etc but who also want no controls whatsoever for the market sphere. They stop short when there are govt subsidies, however.
Let them parade or whatever. But find a day besides Earth Day. Why not Chris;tmas Day, to show how consumer goods are so important to us?
posted by Postroad at 11:11 AM on April 22, 2001
Let them parade or whatever. But find a day besides Earth Day. Why not Chris;tmas Day, to show how consumer goods are so important to us?
posted by Postroad at 11:11 AM on April 22, 2001
frednorman: They've got a good point, if you ask me.
they don't have any point at all. as I understand it, oil coming from the the arctic national wildlife refuge will amount to about one year's worth for the united states. one year of oil. by any cost benefit analysis, that's not worth the trouble, let alone the environmental decimation (unless you're an oil company, in which case you gain money for the oil and lots of work for yourself.)
further, these folks are framing the argument in ludicrous terms. the only reason to protect the environment is to keep the planet alive and healthy - which means, keeping the human race alive and healthy. environmentalism is not about limiting growth, it's about sustainable growth: intelligent management of resources and doing more with less.
if we spent the money it would take to develop the anwr on developing and building devices that use less energy to produce the same result (or alternate forms of energy based on limitless sources of power: wind, sun, etc) we'd achieve far greater gains than one year of energy.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:23 AM on April 22, 2001
they don't have any point at all. as I understand it, oil coming from the the arctic national wildlife refuge will amount to about one year's worth for the united states. one year of oil. by any cost benefit analysis, that's not worth the trouble, let alone the environmental decimation (unless you're an oil company, in which case you gain money for the oil and lots of work for yourself.)
further, these folks are framing the argument in ludicrous terms. the only reason to protect the environment is to keep the planet alive and healthy - which means, keeping the human race alive and healthy. environmentalism is not about limiting growth, it's about sustainable growth: intelligent management of resources and doing more with less.
if we spent the money it would take to develop the anwr on developing and building devices that use less energy to produce the same result (or alternate forms of energy based on limitless sources of power: wind, sun, etc) we'd achieve far greater gains than one year of energy.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:23 AM on April 22, 2001
rebeccablood: environmentalism is not about limiting growth, it's about sustainable growth
Not to some (extreme) environmentalists. And it is to them that I believe CMDC and ARI are responding. As an example, Dr. Andrew Bernstein quotes one of them, David Graeber (a biologist with the National Parks Service) in his speech:
We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or eco-system to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value — to me — than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. [...] Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
If that's not about limiting growth -- even reducing the population and level of activity we've achieved already -- then I don't know.
posted by frednorman at 12:08 PM on April 22, 2001
Not to some (extreme) environmentalists. And it is to them that I believe CMDC and ARI are responding. As an example, Dr. Andrew Bernstein quotes one of them, David Graeber (a biologist with the National Parks Service) in his speech:
We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or eco-system to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value — to me — than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. [...] Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
If that's not about limiting growth -- even reducing the population and level of activity we've achieved already -- then I don't know.
posted by frednorman at 12:08 PM on April 22, 2001
frednorman: there are extremist environmentalists, just as there are rabid libertarians and radical pro business advocates. I think we can agree that there are extremists in every groups, and that rarely do they represent the group as a whole, and rarely are their agendas actually implemented.
so let's talk about the largest group of environmentalists, the ones who are likely to have the most influence. the ones whose ideas are most likely to affect *you*.
I believe the statements I made above about sustainable growth and intelligent use of resources are representative to most, if not all environmentalist, and are even held by a large number of people who wouldn't label themselves as environmentalists at all.
why rail against a few extremists? why reject something like earth day because you disagree with 1% of the people who support it?
posted by rebeccablood at 12:23 PM on April 22, 2001
so let's talk about the largest group of environmentalists, the ones who are likely to have the most influence. the ones whose ideas are most likely to affect *you*.
I believe the statements I made above about sustainable growth and intelligent use of resources are representative to most, if not all environmentalist, and are even held by a large number of people who wouldn't label themselves as environmentalists at all.
why rail against a few extremists? why reject something like earth day because you disagree with 1% of the people who support it?
posted by rebeccablood at 12:23 PM on April 22, 2001
> why rail against a few extremists?
I can't answer for neither CMDC nor ARI, but my best guess would be that their intention is to show in which direction some environmentalists are heading, and providing a reasonable argument as to why that direction is the wrong way in the first place, to deteriorate others from following them.
> why reject something like earth day because you
> disagree with 1% of the people who support it?
Because they disagree with the entire notion of celebrating the earth as a value in and of itself as well: They see the earth as a value only as much as it is a benefit to man, and that's -- I believe -- the reason why they promote celebrating it as Civilization Day or Industrial Revolution Day (or something) instead, something which I see as a worthy cause.
posted by frednorman at 1:12 PM on April 22, 2001
I can't answer for neither CMDC nor ARI, but my best guess would be that their intention is to show in which direction some environmentalists are heading, and providing a reasonable argument as to why that direction is the wrong way in the first place, to deteriorate others from following them.
> why reject something like earth day because you
> disagree with 1% of the people who support it?
Because they disagree with the entire notion of celebrating the earth as a value in and of itself as well: They see the earth as a value only as much as it is a benefit to man, and that's -- I believe -- the reason why they promote celebrating it as Civilization Day or Industrial Revolution Day (or something) instead, something which I see as a worthy cause.
posted by frednorman at 1:12 PM on April 22, 2001
actually, I wasn't asking you to explain the intent of the organizations: I was addressing you.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:57 PM on April 22, 2001
posted by rebeccablood at 1:57 PM on April 22, 2001
Coz it's our evolutionary perogative. Seriously.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:15 PM on April 22, 2001
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:15 PM on April 22, 2001
I am by no leap of logic a tree hugger, but the "Opposition to Earth Day" is a buncha nutballs.
posted by owillis at 2:40 PM on April 22, 2001
posted by owillis at 2:40 PM on April 22, 2001
...oh, and my point was - then we won't need Earth Days, because we won't need to remind ourselves where we are living.
More on Brithdir Mawr.
posted by ceiriog at 3:40 PM on April 22, 2001
More on Brithdir Mawr.
posted by ceiriog at 3:40 PM on April 22, 2001
Why must 75% of the threads posted these days devolve into a pissing match between corporates and non-corporates? Between drug legalizers and non-drug legalizers? Between Palestinians and Israelis? Between pacifists and pro-military? Between Republicans and Democrats? Between Coke and Pepsi?
Really people, are we all so polarized as to leave no common ground? It seems like so many threads (including this one) are gravitationally pulled to these off-topics like the Earth to the Sun.
Can we try to show a little restraint in regards to that which has been discussed here on Metafilter time and friggin time again? I've been pulled into it as well, but I vow not to be.
The original post was about Earth Day (which really has nothing to do with anti-corporatism) and Information overload (which really has nothing to do with corporatism). Pick your topic. I hope that we can, in this thread and others, simply link to the reams of threads which so eloquently (or not) state each sides' arguments without having to rehash them time and time again...
posted by fooljay at 4:12 PM on April 22, 2001
Really people, are we all so polarized as to leave no common ground? It seems like so many threads (including this one) are gravitationally pulled to these off-topics like the Earth to the Sun.
Can we try to show a little restraint in regards to that which has been discussed here on Metafilter time and friggin time again? I've been pulled into it as well, but I vow not to be.
The original post was about Earth Day (which really has nothing to do with anti-corporatism) and Information overload (which really has nothing to do with corporatism). Pick your topic. I hope that we can, in this thread and others, simply link to the reams of threads which so eloquently (or not) state each sides' arguments without having to rehash them time and time again...
posted by fooljay at 4:12 PM on April 22, 2001
Today for Earth Day, I did nothing. The Earth isn't dying, the tree-huggers just like to complain.
posted by TacoConsumer at 6:01 PM on April 22, 2001
posted by TacoConsumer at 6:01 PM on April 22, 2001
BTW, if you're so inclined to reply to my thread above, why don't you use this already created post on Metatalk. That way at least this thread has a chance of staying on topic...
posted by fooljay at 8:22 PM on April 22, 2001
posted by fooljay at 8:22 PM on April 22, 2001
From the Countermarch site:
"The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism, in association with the Ayn Rand Institute..."
I stopped right there.
posted by holgate at 11:18 AM on April 23, 2001
"The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism, in association with the Ayn Rand Institute..."
I stopped right there.
posted by holgate at 11:18 AM on April 23, 2001
"They see the earth as a value only as much as it is a benefit to man"
Unfortunately, statements like those, which I read as meaning "It doesn't matter unless it directly affects me," are what prompt me to align myself with that 1% who are hoping for a better virus to come along.
Fuck it all, as long as something benefits me.
At least that kind of philosophy excuses you from thinking too hard about your actions or having to develop one of those pesky consciences.
posted by jennyb at 1:56 PM on April 23, 2001
Unfortunately, statements like those, which I read as meaning "It doesn't matter unless it directly affects me," are what prompt me to align myself with that 1% who are hoping for a better virus to come along.
Fuck it all, as long as something benefits me.
At least that kind of philosophy excuses you from thinking too hard about your actions or having to develop one of those pesky consciences.
posted by jennyb at 1:56 PM on April 23, 2001
« Older Why are these people still together? | Phillip Greenspun Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by frednorman at 9:39 AM on April 22, 2001