Badmovies.org Forum

February 19, 2008

You'd think a Professor Emeritus of Economics would write something that doesn't sound like it was written by YouTube users.

Nothing there I didn't already know. Of course, the valid arguments are marred by the melodramatic, exaggerated fearmongering. Hmmmm, maybe he has more in common with environmentalists than he realizes.

So...are the Enviormentalists hell-bent on world domination and genocide?  :question:

 I don't see how protecting the enviorment is in any way going to hurt the human race....quite the opposite.
I don't consider my self an 'enviormentilist'...but I think he's more worried about making money and HIS self interest....he is one of those Obejective Theory guys...right? The pursuit of  personal happiness through more money and power?

He is picking the views of the most rabid as representing the majority . . . . but still, Karma to you Lester!!!!  for sharing.

...which is the same as comparing the views of the Rev.Jim Jones as representing the Christian Religion.

 It's called misrepresentation.

Good point, RC.  Karma to you too!!

But I will say, I think there are more kooks on the environmentalist left than there are on the religious right nowadays, and that's saying something!  Let's call in THE TRIPPER!!

I agree on kooks on the left and kooks on the right...I'm a kook too- but I'm  just  a kook without a cause...!  :bluesad:

There was actually an environmentalist in my science class last year who, when asked if she would rather a thousand humans die of improperly tested medicine than a hundred rabbits for testing it, sh voted humans.  I say we destroy the world and let our kids sort it out!!!!!



just kidding, we just need more fuel efficient cars for me to be happy.

 :bouncegiggle:   Karma for you!

At this stage, I'd settle for a recyling bin in our apartment block.  We seemed to have missed out for some unknown reason......... :question:

  I don't doubt environmentalism is more enlightened than nazism, I mean jeez.  it's just that we always have the impulse to do stuff at the state level that we could just as easily do ourselves if we so desire.  the commies could have lived communally, the nazis could have gone and had white babies in the countryside and been atheists.  environmentalists could kill themselves.

(http://people.csail.mit.edu/adonovan/dilbert/dilbert-19-02-2006.gif)

I'm all for recycling and all that happy stuff, but not at the expense of livelihood.

There are a very few extreme environmentalist wackos here, but the ones we have are just nuts! They're right up there with the kill all the humans to save the planet ... I just tell "You go first."

It's a bit extreme to say that every environmentalist = a nazi = a communist.  But the more extreme ones (such as Earth First!), like commies & nazis do think that the use of force to effect their goals is o.k.  And oddly enough, they are the ones calling the US government fascist.

I think where the valid point gets lost in this is with the mention of Nazis. Too strong an example. You can't make specific comparisons of ideology, because people just don't look at Nazis that way. You can't invoke them without invoking everything they did.

That said, environmentalism does have a few things in common with fascism. The idea of a crisis too great to be resolved by anything but drastic action. Using fear of that crisis to control people. "The world is going to end unless you live the way we tell you." The "fer us or agin us" mentality. The leader who is going to save us all if we listen to him. Scapegoating, propaganda, suppression or ridicule of dissenting views, and so forth.

That has nothing to do with people wanting to reduce pollution or use resources more efficiently. We're talking about the people with political axes to grind.

andy- well put.   



of course, an environmentalist could say that this guy has similar religious/ non empirical views of environmentalism and money.  that is,  if it makes people rich it must be good for the world.

Infelxible Extremism in any form is really a bad horrible thing.  And I am very moderate in my support of that statement!   
However I do think it makes sense to:
1) Stop poisoning our food and water
2) Unnecessarily killing critters (I'll let you decide whats necessary)
3) Giving our hard earned money to the strangehold of foreign powers.  We need to be energy self-sufficient and we sure ain't.
4) Using up non-renewable resources in a silly manner.
5) Make sure most folks have a living.  This include fishers, loggers, miners, environmentalists, etc. 

I mean you husband your personal goods, why not protect the bigger picture? 
-Ed

Ed, don't you see you're a communist Nazi monster child molester because your plans prevent me from having the freedom to dump nuclear waste in the river every night?  I mean, really!  When will you environmentalists learn!

You are correct, I mean it all washes away from your place right?
-Ed

Karma for you!  BUt what I want to know is, why is it that if an enviornmentalist is breaking the la by disturbing the peace with a protest, and the police come to stop them, they refer to the police as nazi's?  They are breaking the law!!!  There is absolutley NOTHING communist, facist, or whatever you want to call it, about upholding the rules and regulations set up by a democratic system.  So not pnly do they want to destroy humanity, they want to destroy AMERICA!!!

Most enviormentilists are not 'Nazi's'.

 Most would just like to keep the earth a nice place for future generations for everybody-YES! even human beings, to live in. And even extreme groups are so minor and small that they don't constitute as big a threat to world peace as Hitler or Communist China . I'm not in fear of any Fascist tree hugger taking over the world. I just can't picture some group of psycho hippies pulling a Bloody Sunday.I  worry about nuts like Timothy McVeigh and Bin Laden.

 And vegans. some spooky people there.... :buggedout:



 Kidding! I KID !!!!!!   :tongueout:

again,  guys,  he's not saying all environmentalists are extrmism.  he's saying their ideologies are based on the idea that the way things have been done since forever have to change and with force if neccasary, whether that is buy and selling things we want,  driving to the store, or having diverse societies.

tars tarkas-  yuo want to see real environmental degradation akin to dumping nuclear waste in rivers, go to any former soviet satellite.  or look at China.  communist countries are the worst environmental abusers ever.   

No, he's being a crybaby and playing the nazi card because he thinks he is entitled to the culture of extreme waste and consumerism that is not sustainable.  Considering he's supposed to be an intellectual, the fact his entire argument sounds like something some idiot on a third-rate right wing blog would post just means he should be ignored until he learns to write at a high school level.
Having diverse societies is now communism?  Isn't that the exact opposite of communism?  Or is it just conservative freakouts that kids these days aren't 1950s idealized fantasyland lily white Americans going through their neighbors trash looking for communist manuals. 

Environmentalism is a luxury of rich nations that can afford to conserve.  Second and third world countries are filled with people who need to worry about feeding their kids today, and care about saving the rain forests tomorrow.  The quickest way to stop the environmental damage is to get them to first world status so their economy can be stabilized and their growing middle class can work for environmental action.  Developing countries you mention (and dismiss as communist of former communist as if it mattered - looks at democratic India or other emerging democracies for the exact same thing) are focused on getting through now and worried about the environment later.  They are akin to 19th century US cities such as Pittsburgh with it's black air or New York with it's poison harbors.  If China gets 1/5th the level of the US, they will be using exactly the same amount of energy as us.  The same thing if India gets 1/4th the level of us.  And they aren't going to settle for fractions, they want the full monty.  We can't support three billion people living on American energy consumption standards, so if someone wants to make more fuel efficient cars that doesn't mean they are shoving Jews into ovens.

When I read this kind of stuff it just makes me bemoan the loss of common sense in the world.

Common sense is a uncommon virtue.

I think protecting the environment is something people should have been doing since the day they stepped foot on the planet. Humans crap on mother nature to a point where the Earth is dying, I'd say recycling is the LEAST we can do.

no.  i was saying the nazis didn't want diversity.  So instead of forcing everyone to live the way they want to, they should have just gone and lived and not consorted with other peoples if that's what they really wanted.  rather than foisting it on everyone else.


the soviet union had billions of dollars, so does china.  they chose or choose not to be environmentally sound because they don't care.    do you think the russians lost sleep over chernobyl?  it's still there and still toxic. 


lol, let them get it themselves!!  "giving" people first world status is the surest way to make sure both you and they are broke.  hayek's "the road to serfdom"


yes the great industrial revolution that built this country.  but does the pollution created by poor people somehow not hurt us?  it's the same air.


you are taking the title too literally.  it's a very very short piece.  he's simplly saying that if you are an environmentalist and want to put out less carbon do so.  the rest of us have free will and wil assess the situation for ourselves.

I visted George Reisman's blog/website. The articale you quoted include some illustrations of the flags of Soviet Russia with a green backround instead of red, a Nazi flag with a greenbackround instead of red, and a UN(!) flag for the Enviormentalists with a green backround instead of blue.

 Cheap  propaganda tricks . And karma to Tars...Reisman obviously has a personal agenda he's pushing ...but a Goebbels he's not. American's are not as as easily brainwashed as post WWI Germans were.

 In fact...here's a link to his blog.

 http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/02/look-whos-gone-green-and-always-was.html#links

Yea, but environmentalists arn't forcing anyone to do anything. They are'nt killing anyone whole dissagrees with them. Peoples free will hasn't been violated by environmentalists.

What offends me, Lester, is that this thread is unadorned flame-bait, and you're trying to pretend that it's not.

I dunno, man. People seem to beleive whatever the government tells them or whatever the mainstream is.
Or atleast MOST people seem that way.

zapranoth-  it's just trying to be eye catching.  I am sorry to environmentalists who were offended.  ethics, as you may have noticed, aren't really my strong suit.




also, I saw a guy on C Span last inght who was literally say that the earth is too populous and we have to do something abuot this or thelittle squirr-elz will suffer.

Actually, I'm surprised at the high level of discourse going on here.  No one has quoted Rush Limbaugh, or Ralph Nader, or is preaching or getting too personal.   This is a class showing.  I hate dinks who flame online just to get attention.  So lets keep the bar up, please?
-Ed

That is not what he is saying.  Let's let the man himself say what he is saying:


That hardly sounds like "live and let live" to me.  The man is pushing an agenda, an doing so in the most offensive way possible because he is unable to make a rational argument against environmentalism.  I tend to ignore people of all political stripes who fling around the Nazi term, as should anyone else.  Be you against environmentalists, George W. Bush, Hillary, or reruns of According to Jim, resorting to cheap name calling is the realm of the school play yard. 

I decided some time ago that, even though I love nature and try to be a good steward of the earth, to avoid the term environmentalist with reference to myself.  There are too many nutjobs crowded under that umbrella these days.  I am a proud CONSERVATIONIST - I believe in the sensible use of renewable resources and the preservation of nature as far as human needs allow it.  I believe the earth was made for man, not man for the earth - but I also believe that as earth's masters, we will be held accountable for our stewardship of it.  This is our home, and we need to take care of it - but we also need to take care of our children and their descendants.

I think the last post is the best one yet in this thread.

Look, the discourse has been good, but perhaps introducing a piece without any real introduction (ie, "what do y'all think of this article?") is as good as saying "here is something I wholeheartedly endorse."  At least, that's a reasonable assumption to make under current internet etiquette.

I agree with what was just said -- I would say I'm a "conservationist," certainly not an environmentalist nutjob -- but is it actually reasonable or productive to make comparisons to Nazi Germany?    It's awkward at the very least, and probably flame-bait with the right nuance (or lack thereof).

I will shut up now and leave the thread, but lester -- next time, you might say something besides just quoting the article.  Even "discuss."  Otherwise, the implied commentary might be taken as "I wish I had written this."   Which may or may not be exactly what you mean.

Amen Indy, responsible conservation without radical environmentalism. Don't little, recycle when you can, conserve when possible and don't be wasteful. As I've said and you've said be a good steward.

tars-  that's not from the piece I posted though.  i mean, let's be fair.  i think that is taking his anaology too far btw, the stuff abut german businessmen.

 in defense of Tars...it IS from the same authour...George Reisman...and from the same blog-!

  http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/02/word-to-environmentalists.html
So I wouldn't say it's unfair at all!  Reisman just expanded on what he already stated.

And being a follower of Ayn Rand-an egoist-he's basically 'all for the good of ME...and f#ck you." -To put it in it's bare bones.
 It's a selfish philosophy.

same blog and author but not the same piece.  actually I got it from mises.org


I don't know if he is specifically an ayn rand follower.  I myself  am constantly told that i am one though I've never read any of her books and have no desire too.

but you raise an interesting point:   basically, that we need to flagellate ourselves  because something awful , like global warming, will happen if we don't.  that we should always ask for less.  I say: ask for more!!!

Yes, Reisman himself took his agenda too far.  It is just more of the same Randian fear of anything that may stand in the way of big business doing whatever it wants because business can do no wrong.  (and he specifically cites Ayn Rand in the masthead of his blog)

As for asking for more, that is what I do.  I ask for more clean environments.  I ask for more corporate responsibility.  I ask for more responsible government.  I ask for more for my children and my children's children so they can enjoy nature like I did.  I ask to not be called a Nazi because I advocate not littering or higher fuel standards.  And I do more than ask, I actively work to make sure that's the case.  And some guy calling me names on his blog isn't going to stop me.

"It is just more of the same Randian fear of anything that may stand in the way of big business doing whatever it wants because business can do no wrong. "

yes.  I made the same point about 3 pages ago.  that environmentalism and libertarianism are clasing on this issue because to a libertarian capitalism is like a religion and too the environmentalist   (in both cases these are generalizations obviously)  capitallism must be bad and must be the culprit for whatever is going wrong.  to us libertarians, usually the state is the culprit.  of course,  9 times out of ten it is the state!! 

so it's easy to be cynical about initiatives at the state level  because they are almost always the reesult of special intersts and oppurtunism. 


also,  we tend to reject nationalist sort of "let's all get in the spirit of.." this or that.

so hether it's war or environmentalism we are like totally suspicious.


remember how gung ho everyone was for iraq?  or how they are for darfur now?

no and no i say.


no no no

I think the environment wouldn't be as bad, but oil companies have patents on most fuel efficiency improvements for cars, yeah, lets blame them.