Here’s the site Keira:
BLO
There is the major difference in
1)Cost
2)The level of potential danger that attaches itself to said actions
I’m sure no one had their lives risked remedying this situation.
Yes, they were the most savage terrorists to walk the Earth.
No, I’m just kidding. If you can claim there is a world of difference between crashing a passenger plane into the Pentagon and torching a bunch of SUVs, then I can claim there is a world of difference between torching a bunch of SUVs and essentially playing a prank with a bunch of toys.
The determining factor to me is when destruction is the primary goal of the act, which I find hard to say in the case of the BLO, but have no problem attributing to ELF or bin Laden.
Earth to Earth Liberation Front: Get offa my side!
Scapegoatism. The SUV has become the symbol of all these people hate. Obviously, it isn’t this simple, but who wants to deal with complexity when you’re FIGHTING FOR A CAUSE?
Sheesh.
I find this to be a much more effective strategy for the masses as far as SUV’s are concerned. Insidiously funny too. 
No- we are the Liberation Front of Earth.
It’s the popular front.
So, did the altered Barbies come with M-16’s and rocket launchers?
Funny stuff. Great idea and effective. My link was to real evangelicals doing serious evangelizing. No joke. Serendipitous, hysterical and brilliant. It’s like crack, I tell ya.
[disclaimer] I’m a person who doesn’t care about religion or religious issues {beyond athiest, as I like to say} and has never had eny exposure to, or experience with, crack cocaine. Thank you. [/disclaimer]
- No, I don’t think it’s worth defending at all. I’ll explain, not that my explanation will make you guys think I’m any less of a nut.
First of all, there’s one major assumption to be made here: that unlike the dinosaurs we are going to be here forever. I think that’s absurd on the face of things. So, why are we “preserving the planet” when we’re all going the way of the dodo anyway?
Second, sooner or later the Earth will be consumed by the expanding sun. By the time it even gets close the heat will have killed us all. So, again, why bother trying to “save the planet” when it’s doomed anyway?
And third, I’ll be long dead anyway, and my attempts to conserve will be like the little boy and the dyke. If there were a worldwide, large scale movement to do something, I might be amenable to that, but since the vast majority of countries are too busy trying to survive and don’t have the luxury of conservation, what I do won’t matter, and all it would do would be to postpone the inevitable for a short while. Big deal.
So, what’s the point? There really isn’t any when you look at the big picture.
That doesn’t mean I condone things like Bhopal or Chernobyl, but driving a car surely won’t bring the planet to its demise appreciably faster in the grand scheme of things.
So, the answer to question 2 is none, in my opinion. None at all. You want to let nature take its course? Let it. What we’re doing is no less natural than the dinosaurs eating themselves out of existence.
I’ve never heard this theory before, not to get too off topic, but I’d love to see the Hungry Theory Site…
Hmm, I think Airman Door’s theories are a little specious. I mean do you not believe that the few billion years it will take the sun to envelope the earth will be long enough for humanity to develop the technology to colonize the rest of the solar system and beyond?
As for going the way of the dodo, I don’t perceive it as such. I think that humanity is in the unique position to prevent it’s own extinction by having the ability to be aware of EVERY problem that is presented.
However, by the same token, I think that progress is our salvation. I do not believe we should even attempt to go back. Somethign the last 100 years has shown us is that as technology has become more advanced and more widely utilized, our air and environments have become cleaner, and as we discover environmental problems we come up with solutions, such as not building over wetlands because they are a natural fresh water filtration system.
As for the very selfish idea that you won’t be here, I don’t see what that has to do with anything, you are part of a larger whole, called society, you’ve even spawned your own genetic material, which will most likely spawn it’s own genetic material. You don’t think you’ll care what happens to that genetic material on down the line? I’d like to hear back from you on this when you’re a grandfather.
I think humanity is part of a whole, I don’t think that we are individuals living alone in the universe, we are part of a whole system, one which, we cannot perceive all ends because it is much greater than we are, or the sum of our actions and relationships. By the same token, humanity is part of an even larger whole, called the Earth, and at this point I think humanity is not doing the Earth more harm than can be reasonably sustained, and that the potential benefits humanity can bring to life on Earth (bringing it to the stars) is immeasurable.
Erek
[Hijack]
Hell, there’s a good chance the earth will be gone long before that. The Milky Way and Andromeda are heading for a close encounter in about 3billion years. If we’re on the wrong side of the galaxy, we’re done.
I guess that on this issue, I come down on the very ambivalent side. On the one hand, I really understand the frustration of these groups with the total disregard for the ecological problems that exist. It feels more and more as if the world is in the hands of a few maniacs that are pretty willing to trash everything and leave future generations to pay the bill.
On the other hand, I tend to think that any group that is as sure of their convictions as these folks seem to be can very rapidly become an ugly thing. The line between the Direct Action radical burning down SUVs or condo developments without harming people and radical Right to Life folks bombing abortion clinics is pretty thin.
On the other other hand (bet you didn’t know that I had three), I am not sure if anything else will work. It seems that protesting fails miserably, lobbying seems like it might work but the fact is that I can’t throw the kind of money around that the corporations can so that my voice is heard.
These people are morons. Their tactics reflect that.
The only thing they’ve accomplished is to help paint the rest of the environmentalist movement with the same brush, and that’s a shame. That being said I am more worried about “Eco-Terrorists” burning down research facilities and destroying decades worth of work, especially when it comes to GM food research. That’s the kind of “eco-terrorism” which actually has an effect, and not a good one.
To some deep-core environmentalists, GM foods are the worst thing since the internal combustion engine.
According to one book I’ve read, some see GM foods as being incredibly harmful to the environment if they started germinating in the wild. They have the potential of “taking over” because they are less succeptible to things like insect defloration, and drought. Some think that if these plants do “take over” in the wild, it could lead to virtual extinction of many insect species which are vital to polination of other crops. So far, as I recall, scientists have tried to make the plants sterile, but we all know what happened in * Jurassic Park. *
Their other argument against GM foods is the expense in creating them. They sincerely doubt that such an expensive crop would be distributed out of the goodness of the hearts of the developers to starving third world nations. They also take issue with the fact that if the plants are sterile, then the third-worlders will have to buy seed each planting season, rather than a “natural” crop in which seeds can be harvested and saved.
So, when the E.L.F destroys a GM lab, they’re fighting against what they see as potential monster.
Here’s MY question related to all of this.
Who is being more harmful to the environment? A person that drives a large SUV to and from work (say, round trip 15 miles) or a person that drives a Honda Civic Hybrid 51 miles round trip to work?
Do the math, they both have burned about 1 gallon of gasoline in a single day. Yeah, the guy in the Civic Hybrid is being a little more “earth conscious” by not driving an SUV 51 miles round trip (or maybe he’s just being economically wise), however the guy in the SUV did not do any more so-called damage to the earth in a day than the guy in the modified golf cart did.
Basically, demonizing SUVs (another inanimate object some people probably think we need to control) is ludicrous!
Leave it to the ELF to start torching 'em.
Yes, I see your point, if only it applied to all Hybrids and SUVs and their respective distances. Unfortunately, it doesn’t.
I’m not a tree hugger enviro freak, but I try to do my part. I haven’t had a car for about 3 years now, I walk 3.5 blocks to work, I tend to buy organic or locally grown produce. I try not to follow the conspicuous consumer trends. I don’t expect everyone to do as I do, but there are rational limits to environmental overuses such as SUVs when they’re really unnecessary. A little moderation would be a good start…
Yeah, we both agree, I was gonna say but ran out of typing steam that it’s all about the individual and how each looks at their role in the whole scheme of being reasonable and considerate about the environment and their neighbors…“SUV’s don’t harm the environment, people harm the environment”…
okay, that deserves a big gong! Sorry.