Page 1 of 3 123>
Topic Options
#43972 - 11/02/10 04:34 PM Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion?
Milchar Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 35
Loc: Göteborg, Sweden
They can call their movement with many different names, but its main point is the same: disrespect to human civilization and respect to any non-human life. It's becoming a kind of new cult that places Homo Sapiens into the role of evil instead of the Devil. Though it still does not have any sacred text but this is probably just a question of time, as well as the coming of a prophet. What will happen if they've become a real dominant religion? Can it be even worse than christianity?
Top
#43973 - 11/02/10 05:02 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Milchar]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
It'd be hard to be more hypocritical than the average christian these days.

I honestly don't think much will materialize from this movement that will bring it out of the fringe. Quite simply, it's lacking in basic truth in too many of its tenets. The 'green' movement is rooted in junk science and the truth of that is ever coming forward into the light. The Vegan lifestyle is a choice to deny meat eating based on notions that doing so is not a sound practice for one's health and the consumption of other sentient life is seen by some adherents as something amoral. There is plenty of science to dispute the former and most people are wired to disagree with the latter.

So, yeah, these modern hippies can be as sanctimonious and preachy as any christian but probably won't ever pose the same threat(s) to sound minded people.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#43980 - 11/03/10 11:04 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Fnord]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
We evolved eating meat - see the Paleo diet threads here, or google persistence hunting.

Or, if you prefer, "If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat."

But really, this movement won't go large-scale because it goes against what's easy (for Americans, anyway). Fast food is the cheapest, easiest source of raw calories available for most people.

Try winning this argument in xtian society: cheap food should be made more expensive, because it's mostly sugar and carbs.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#44072 - 11/10/10 04:21 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Fnord]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
The 'green' movement is rooted in junk science and the truth of that is ever coming forward into the light. The Vegan lifestyle is a choice to deny meat eating based on notions that doing so is not a sound practice for one's health and the consumption of other sentient life is seen by some adherents as something amoral. There is plenty of science to dispute the former and most people are wired to disagree with the latter.

One moment here. The "green" movement who you say is rooted in junk science are actually hippies and vegans in disguise. The real "green" movement is made up of real scientists who simply observe, calculate and measure. The movement you probably are familiar with consists out of normal people such as the average guest or member here. Only problem these movements face are just that. The members aren't familiar with real "hardcore" scientific publications and will almost always have a thoroughly oversimplified "translation" at hand from which they very often draw wrong conclusions (I may not say false..). It wouldn't be the first time a researcher is being put "into the wrong box" by others whilst they are using his figures and results to proof him wrong. Haaa, the dangers of popular science..

I also find it quite wrong that many who disagree with the points of view from vegans and bioethicists automatically conclude all their ideas are simply "retarded", "junk", "belong in the bin". What was it with the many shades of grey again? These groups do have a few points, but they tend to exagerrate a lot. It can be quite enlighting to actually read some of their scientific publications and do a bit of critical research yourself. But then again, almost anyone prefers to take a lot at facevalue as soon as it looks a bit more "serious".

 Quote:
We evolved eating meat - see the Paleo diet threads here, or google persistence hunting.

Oh and autodidact... we evolved towards being omnivores. Ask your local dentist or master in Biology about your teeth and their functional form, not to forget other biological adaptations such as the length of your intestines to "partially" break-down cellulose from the vegetables you eat.


Edited by Dimitri (11/10/10 04:25 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44085 - 11/12/10 10:22 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

These groups do have a few points, but they tend to exagerrate a lot. It can be quite enlighting to actually read some of their scientific publications and do a bit of critical research yourself. But then again, almost anyone prefers to take a lot at facevalue as soon as it looks a bit more "serious".


I'm not an environmental scientist and, that being the case, detailed analyses of percentages of carbon etc aren't likely to make much sense to me. Frankly, I think a lot of these 'studies' are dependent on people not understanding exactly what they are supposed to be saying. Of course, as always, I do appreciate your insinuation that I'm somehow lax in researching my points. As such, I'd invite you to cite some of your own as I'm always ready to learn something new.

I can, however, think in a critical way when it comes to who might benefit from doing these studies (and potentially skewing the results thereof) and who might be interested in keeping the plain English details in a perpetual state of obfuscation. In my research on this topic, I've run across concepts like Conservation Banking, Cap and Trade, software companies who could make billions in the management thereof, some logical fallacies presented in plain english and a whole long road of billionaires including UN officials who stand to gain in great and unbelievable quantities by presenting this all as a great threat.

Like most 'threats' it can all be boiled down to the simple example of the schoolyard bully and paying for protection. We're told that if industrialized nations simply pay more (Cap and Trade) their pollution will be overlooked. One big problem, for me, is that they want to start these protection payments under Obama in the good ole US of A. Never mind that we're 4% of the world population and are barely even 'industrial'. We'll (meaning the American middle class) pay for it, China and India will continue belching filth into the air and water and the financiers will continue laughing all the way to the bank.

By the by, they tried this crap in the 70's when they told us we were in for a new ice age. People didn't buy it then but the same, exact individuals were involved. Big surprise.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#44086 - 11/12/10 10:24 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
The real "green" movement is made up of real scientists who simply observe, calculate and measure.


Agreed - the bandwagon mentality distorts things beyond recognition. Interesting that the world gets more and more complicated and specialized, but the requirement to do the hard work yourself to get down to the real facts never goes away.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

 Quote:
We evolved eating meat - see the Paleo diet threads here, or google persistence hunting.

Oh and autodidact... we evolved towards being omnivores.


I know - the comment was directed against the prior vegan statements, and was not intended to be exclusive (hence the mention of Paleo).

Now, if we shift the meaning of "green" to a discussion about the cons of CAFOs and industrialized veg, and the pros of free-range, grass-fed beef and organic heirloom tomatoes (using "organic" very loosely), well, I'm all for anything that delivers me a delicious, healthy cheeseburger
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#44087 - 11/12/10 10:44 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Autodidact]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
Interesting that the world gets more and more complicated and specialized, but the requirement to do the hard work yourself to get down to the real facts never goes away.


Chasing down the 'real' facts is an endeavor said to make men mad.

Have you ever noticed that the most insanely smart people that you know are also the looniest? \:\)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#44088 - 11/12/10 05:18 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Fnord]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
Interesting that the world gets more and more complicated and specialized, but the requirement to do the hard work yourself to get down to the real facts never goes away.


Chasing down the 'real' facts is an endeavor said to make men mad.

Have you ever noticed that the most insanely smart people that you know are also the looniest? \:\)


Yes, myself included

Seriously, though, I wonder if that's more a judgement-of-the-masses - most well-informed people I know are deemed "smart but looney", meaning "out-of-norm enough to be considered looney", regardless of their actual intelligence or "loonieness".

(Did that make any sense at all?)
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#44091 - 11/13/10 04:44 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Fnord]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
I'm not an environmental scientist and, that being the case, detailed analyses of percentages of carbon etc aren't likely to make much sense to me. Frankly, I think a lot of these 'studies' are dependent on people not understanding exactly what they are supposed to be saying. Of course, as always, I do appreciate your insinuation that I'm somehow lax in researching my points. As such, I'd invite you to cite some of your own as I'm always ready to learn something new.

As such, I'm a lazy ass in spoonfeeding.. But on the other hand I always love to give a few names of organizations and reports which "might" help. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ) and their reports are a good start. Too bad they sometimes make quite some biased claims (and I am well aware that if any environmental scientist, other than perhaps me, is present his or her boat is rocking quite hard now after this remark..). You could also try to look up the official sites and publications of your local state whose main focus is the envirronement (but then again.. having watched the video with climate change and the influence of god I started to doubt the sincerity of science-related subjects in the US.).

The studies and numbers on themselves should be viewed as they are without any thinking. The problem with most of these numbers is the interpretation of them and the need for a point of reference is VERY loose (you can compare results from this year with those of last year, 2years ago, 200 years ago,... there will be huge or almost non-existing differences depending the choice). Also keeping in mind the natural state of the ever-fluctuatung percentages of the different gasses and their sources.

 Quote:
Like most 'threats' it can all be boiled down to the simple example of the schoolyard bully and paying for protection. We're told that if industrialized nations simply pay more (Cap and Trade) their pollution will be overlooked. One big problem, for me, is that they want to start these protection payments under Obama in the good ole US of A. Never mind that we're 4% of the world population and are barely even 'industrial'. We'll (meaning the American middle class) pay for it, China and India will continue belching filth into the air and water and the financiers will continue laughing all the way to the bank.

The cap and trade sollution only works if there is a money transfer towards the developping industrial countries. The investments could be used (in theory... LOUD COUGH) in green "technology" so even more pollution can be avoided. I think I do not need to draw a picture how the idea of taxmoney going to another country would be received..

Isn't this a fun world or what?

 Quote:
By the by, they tried this crap in the 70's when they told us we were in for a new ice age. People didn't buy it then but the same, exact individuals were involved. Big surprise.

If my memory serves me well, then these guys were right. A new ice-age will occur... between the time-span of a few thousand to a few hundred years.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44095 - 11/15/10 09:36 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

As such, I'm a lazy ass in spoonfeeding..


Yeah, well, I was just being polite in asking. I've already stated my opinion and I think your assertion that there are 'hardcore' scientific proofs for any of this man made environmental bullshit is nothing short of you falling for the latest governmental scam (fear campaign) to grab money from people.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Too bad they sometimes make quite some biased claims ...


Are the 'hardcore' scientific proofs embedded somewhere in those biased claims?

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
(but then again.. having watched the video with climate change and the influence of god I started to doubt the sincerity of science-related subjects in the US.).


Yes, the US is horrible in science, you're right. All you have to do is look at the list of stuff that's been invented here and you'll readily see how stupid we all are.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
The studies and numbers on themselves should be viewed as they are without any thinking.


So taking things completely out of context is your idea of a valid scientific study? Numbers have no value without application.


 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
The problem with most of these numbers is the interpretation of them and the need for a point of reference is VERY loose (you can compare results from this year with those of last year, 2years ago, 200 years ago,... there will be huge or almost non-existing differences depending the choice). Also keeping in mind the natural state of the ever-fluctuatung percentages of the different gasses and their sources.


Things that require 'very loose' interpretation and leave more doubt than answers are not 'hardcore' scientific proofs to me. You mentioned above that you're an environmental scientist. Cite some of your 'hardcore' references without the attempted sarcasm and the condescending attitude and you may be taken slightly more seriously.


 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
If my memory serves me well, then these guys were right. A new ice-age will occur... between the time-span of a few thousand to a few hundred years.


Well, there you go again being all precise and scientific and stuff. Golly, you're just blowing my small american unscientific mind with stuff like this.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#44110 - 11/16/10 12:59 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Fnord]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
Well to be honest Fnord I wasn't totally disagreeing with you. On the other hand I didn't say you were right.

When I said that the studies and mathematical results should be viewed as they are, then I didn't say you have to completly rip them out of context. I'll try to explain with an example.
Lets say a scientist measured the amount of CO2 in the toposphere using exact methods of measurments and without having made mistakes and his results indicate that the percentage CO2 in a cubic meter of air is about 0.045%.
The envirronmental minded person sees this result and starts panicking saying that the percentage is too high and people should be worried about it.
The economist might say it isn't that of a big deal because in the past centuries and/or millions of years this percentage was WAY higher (or even find some scientific reports that indicate that during the middle-ages or other historical period which say the same thing.)

The thing I want to say is to keep an objective stance and simply say "yes, thats the amount of CO2 measured under such and such conditions". Depending what the impact of this heightend result might be I'd probably would take a look on other reference points then past events. I would look at studies under which conditions most living beings tend to live properly with a maximal/minimal set of atmospheric needs and conditions.

In other words: just see the numbers as they are. 0.045 is 0.045 measured. The reason why scientific reports are long and very crypticly written is for the reason for maintaining objective stance. As soon as the words "higher/lower then.." is being used it no longer is objective and critical thinking and interpretation MUST be applied.

I hope you can read dutch for the asked references. I, however, must also say I take a look of the graphs and try to filter out any subjective point of view (which is already difficult enough on its own).
Navigations for publications of the VMM (Vlaamse milieu maatschappij)
As booklets: VLAREM 1 and VLAREM 2 (not so much as a report, but those are the 2 booklets with laws and norms about all possible emissions).
Reports of the IPCC, currently working trough the 5th edition
And other reports from aquafin (for waterquality), Electrabel/Suez (gas and electricity usage) and other companies busy with the handling of waste or other fields concerning the environnement.

I believe the IPCC is the closest thing for having an idea how the envirronement is doing in other countries then my own. (Since I'm from Belgium I'm used working with Belgian and European reports and not so much those of US, France, Italy, Asia, Russia,..). As said before try to check out and find some governmental organs (or private companies) concerning envirronement in your own country, I simply don't know every organisation in the world concerning these issues.

And when I spoke about "biased claims" I was referring to the use of popular and mass-approved science with which some critical information is being "forgotten" or simply ignored during a rewriting. I can think of the example concerning CO2 rates over times. While they are indeed getting raising, it is not that exotic for having concentrations above 0.038% (this is the real concentration number, the 0,045 was ment as an exagerated example btw). Taking a look at geological timescales and the information of the atmosphere the arctic ice revealed us we can easily conclude there were times these rates were even HIGHER without any human intervention. A reason climatesceptics tend to use a lot and which is very shunned/ignored and simply not known by the masses, yet it is a valid undisputable scientific fact.

There are many nuances to be made, politics tend to follow the little cries of the masses and thus follow and act for the people. The masses are biased and thus the regulations which should be objective, aren't because of this.

Hope that sorts out a few knots without any sarcastic comments.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44271 - 11/20/10 10:12 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

Hope that sorts out a few knots without any sarcastic comments.


Sorry for the delay, I grew weary of the argument, truth be told.

I don't see any of the climate science, currently, as being a harbinger of impending doom. As you've pointed out yourself, it's inconclusive at this point. Add in one clown (Al Gore) and a whole slew of doubt at the hands of clowns like him, and you have a formula for public disregard of something that is probably a valid study.

I do recognize after reading your polite response ( \:\) ) that I was, perhaps, hasty in calling it all junk science. What I really meant to convey is my opinion that some hawks out there are making more of it than should be made at this point for the purpose of starting businesses and trying force legislation that would allow them to profit from it. I should have called it 'junk presentation.'

Of course, I live on the Gulf Coast in hurricane alley so if you're right you can be the first to laugh at me when I'm dead ;\)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#44281 - 11/20/10 04:59 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Fnord]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
It is quite normal you don't see much of the climate change. It's a work on the VERY LONG road. Much of the actual changes can only be perceived in numbers, graphs and many different simulations.
However in some placed the change can be felt (being 3rd world countries). Examples would be the water suplies having shrunked significantly, upcomming deserts in Spain, Africa and parts of South-America. Also some insects, plants and animals start to appear in places they once couldn't grow/live in.

I remember seeing a Macroglossum stellatarum (Hummingbird Hawk-moth) past during the summer this year, past year and the year before while it is said to only live slightly warmer climates. (I think this insect was considered very rare/alien on the Belgian biodiversity lists a decade or less ago.)
Other species would include certain spiders, the ability of tarantulas to survive our summers and winters in the open nature (luckily very rare.. I fucking hate/fear spiders).

I hardly laugh with people dying, unless there is a certain irony involved or if they died stupidly. (Anyone heard the last darwin-award winner from this year?) And do not worry, I tend not to frequent that much to view and wait all the possible responses, I myself just came home from a drinking-spree which lasted 3 days.


Edited by Dimitri (11/20/10 05:01 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44379 - 11/22/10 05:44 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Dutch Satanist Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/19/10
Posts: 69
Loc: Delft, The Netherlands
So, the climate changes. Hasn't it always? There are already 4 noted significant changes in a year. They call them seasons. They are so common they have given them names. Oh wait, you were talking about the aptly named man-made climate change. It's a myth. The Earth has always known macro-seasons like ice ages and polar shifts. We're overdue for one, by the way.

Did you know they found a viking vineyard under the ice in Greenland? Do you know how Greenland got it's name? One hint: it's not because of the ice. So, 1200 years ago, greenland was lush and green. Now it's a huge slab of ice.

What was your point again? Oh yes, the climate changes. Well, it does all the time. So what?

Oh, we are causing the warming up of the planet? Are you sure? All the evidence you cite is anecdotal. It can also be explained by an impending ice age (where warming up of the planet is quite common before temperatures plummet down).

The numbers you say. Well, I don't trust these because I suspect them to be subjective. Any scientist/researcher nowadays that publishes documents and proofs that aren't compatible with the man-made climate change meme gets his/her funding pulled. That might give those numbers bias. The engine behind it is a global political agenda. Beat people into submission and get this insane carbon credit (a.k.a. cap and trade) thing rolling.

So, where do I stand on this climate change thing? I am indifferent. I refuse to change my lifestyle unless it suits me. \:\)


Edited by Dutch Satanist (11/22/10 05:45 AM)
_________________________
“There is a beast in man that needs to be excersised, not exorcised.”

Top
#44386 - 11/22/10 09:13 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dutch Satanist]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
The Epic Fail of Communism as been acknowledged by most people for some time. Still, it's theories are alive and well in most universities, the unemployed cafe class, and among journalists.

The Reds have spent quite a bit of effort to rebrand the product. Out - Uncle Joe and Gulags, in - European 'Social Democracy', Environmentalism, and Obamanism.

Ayn Rand covered the Reds roots of the Green movement almost 40 years ago in "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution." Every Green talking point is little more than Leftist attempt to control private property, and thus - control the individual.

The Green movement, like any Leftist movement, relies on emotional appeal, junk science, anti-intellectualism, and silencing the opposition. As Stalin said 'Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We do not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?'

Look no further than the CRU at East Anglia University. For years the scientists there hid there data from peer review. Their idea of peer review was to only share their data with others within there group. This is like asking your friend to grade your homework. Peer review is the foundation of Science.

Anthropomorphic Climate Change deserves it's own thread, never the less, I will tackle it a bit here. When you claim X cause Y you must prove and control for X. I have never seen any 'climate science' that shows rate of change. The Goreical has been jumping up and down about melting ice caps and rising sea levels since the mid 90's. So, in almost 20 years, how high has the sea level rose? How high will it be in another 20 years? Show your work.

I will beat you up about Green House gasses in the next reply.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
Page 1 of 3 123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.