Extinction Rebellion

[Alan B]

The main problem is, of course, that we humans are top of the food-chain. There is no predator that uses us as their regular main food source...

Unlike other species lower down the ladder.

Why is it a problem that we are at the top?

Are the lower-animals lobby getting to you? Eat them - they are LOWER ANIMALS.

Stupid reply, Cunt. Other species population size and growth is curtailed by predation and food supply. With humanity there is no predation to slow or even reduce our unrestrained growth (it has trebled since the 1950s). We are adept at managing and inventing new methods to ensure our overall food supply is maintained in step with this unlimited population growth. This has resulted in destruction of habitats for other species, the results of which may affect our way of life, indeed, in the long term, even our survival.
Other species cannot manage their food sources in the same way. If climate change (or another invading species, e.g. humans) makes their food source untenable, then that species dies, becomes extinct.

[pErvinalia]

Yebut God put the creatures there for our use. Cunt shares his views on naturalism with the Pope.

[Animavore]

How do you communicate to people of such ignorance and obstinance that a collapse of species from the bottom up affects everyone?

We're living in a World with a 70 percent collapse of insects. A massive collapse of frogs. 50 percent wipe out of invertebrates. Overfishing, coral bleaching, and agricultural run-off leading to mass suffocation destroying the fisheries.

A collapse at the lower level has repercussions all the way up.

[Alan B]

As an aside:
New Scientist

Ancient Roman air pollution caused climate change in Europe

The Roman Empire lit so many fires that the resulting air pollution cooled the climate in Europe.

The finding adds to the evidence that human societies have been affecting Earth’s climate for thousands of years. However, these past changes are dwarfed by the current global warming, which is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Complex societies like the Roman Empire affect the climate in many ways. People burn fuel like wood to heat their homes, releasing greenhouse gases and soot. They also cut down forests to grow crops, and burn the residues of crops.

Previous studies have estimated the impacts past societies made by releasing greenhouse gases and converting forests to farmland. For instance, in 2016, a team including Joy Singarayer at the University of Reading in the UK concluded that, in Europe and South-East Asia, human-induced temperature changes can be seen as early as 7000 years ago.

/continues (if you subscribe)

The world population was about (very much 'about') 100/200 million in Ancient Roman times...

[Brian Peacock]

Arguing for the status quo is just serving the interests who've put profit before people for the last 400 years. You're a stoolie for Capitalism - just like they trained you to be.

Brilliant! You think I'm arguing for the status quo! Peacocking around again. No wonder I am keeping you suspended, with this kind of contemptable and deliberate misrepresentation.

I'm saying that the 'status quo' is GOING to happen, to a certain extent, whatever we do.

Yeah, I know. Arguing for the impossibility of change is arguing for the status quo. Arguing that this is just how things are is exactly what you've been socialised to think by consumer culture and the illusion of choice. You don't even think about that fact that 'the system' was designed by and for the very same interests who have convinced you there's no other way of doing things.

As far as being a stoolie for capitalism (he Peacocked with exemplary manners) I guess they did train me to like it. My whole life, capitalist societies have been improving the lives of almost everyone they have touched. It's been magic for human rights, eradication of poverty and reduction of crime, so yeah, I like it.

Don't you? Are you one of those folks who uses thousands of dollars worth of computers to advocate against capitalism? It sounds like it would fit in with the usual Peacocking.

Capitalism has no interest in improving anyone's life. If Capitalism was a world-improving project then nobody would be dying from malaria for the want of medication that costs less than a cent to produce, nobody would be starving while we throw away 40% of all global food production. How has Capitalism improved the lives of the peoples of Flint, Michigan, to take just one familiar example? How has Capitalism improved the lives of the global population when the top 100 companies account for 71% of greenhouse gas, CO2, and particulate emissions?

Capitalism is concerned with profit, not with the well-being of people. You're confusing the fact that you're not malnourished, disease-ridden and uneducated, that you live in a relatively ordered society with a nominally democratic system with the idea that Capitalism has provided all that specifically for you. Go and tell that to the people starving on the streets of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and see what they think about that idea. Capitalism opposed all those things tooth an claw and continues to work to undermine them today - there's no profit in making sure people have somewhere to live, enough to eat, are healthy, educated, have democratic controls over their society. .

Deny it all you like but Capitalism doesn't have your best interests at heart - it's an economic system designed to generate and horde wealth in the hand of a few entities in order to secure power and generate more wealth, etc etc, and the necessity of your participation in that project simply makes you an economic resource and, when you're no longer useful to Capital, economic cannon fodder; it makes you slave to that master. I don't want to live like a slave, but I can understand why you might.

[Cunt]

Capitalism is concerned with profit, not with the well-being of people.

I didn't read all that because most of what you write is dogshit stupid.

Of course capitalism doesn't have the well-being of people at heart. It is not something with a heart. People have that, and when they live under capitalism, they are empowered to do great things (and terrible things) like providing women with the vote, civil rights, all the freedoms and privileges we have are supported by capitalism.

What would you say is the better system? Oh, and don't work too hard, you are still on suspension because of all the dogshit stupid posts, so I won't read much of it.

[Animavore]

[pErvinalia]

, all the freedoms and privileges we have are supported by capitalism.

The freedom to not be exploited by rich arseholes doesn't seem to be supported by capitalism.

[Cunt]

, all the freedoms and privileges we have are supported by capitalism.

The freedom to not be exploited by rich arseholes doesn't seem to be supported by capitalism.

Why, with all your years of thoughtful observation, would you choose to live in a capitalist country?

Are you trapped? Or is it just a lot better than the non-capitalist countries you love most?

[pErvinalia]

Perhaps our "wealth" isn't to do with capitalism and more to do with third world exploitation and inter-generational theft.

[Animavore]

Another right-wing scumbag admired by Trump hellbent on destroying the World.

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/06/brazi ... HX3jED7FiU#

[Brian Peacock]

Capitalism is concerned with profit, not with the well-being of people.

I didn't read all that because most of what you write is dogshit stupid.

Of course capitalism doesn't have the well-being of people at heart. It is not something with a heart. People have that, and when they live under capitalism, they are empowered to do great things (and terrible things) like providing women with the vote, civil rights, all the freedoms and privileges we have are supported by capitalism.

What would you say is the better system? Oh, and don't work too hard, you are still on suspension because of all the dogshit stupid posts, so I won't read much of it.

If you want a discussion argue with what I wrote, not what you imagine I might have said. To not read my post but then complain about it is a bit, you know, cowardly - like you don't want to encounter ideas that might cause a disturbance in the dark side of the force.

:jedi:

[pErvinalia]

[notmod]This is a warning, Brian Peacock, that Cunt has suspended you. [/notmod]

[Cunt]

Perhaps our "wealth" isn't to do with capitalism and more to do with third world exploitation and inter-generational theft.

Capitalism is to blame for everything you dislike, I think I get it. What other system gets the credit for everything you like?

Myself, I like a lot of the stuff around socialism. It's a shitty way to phrase it I think, but I'm all about the shitty phrasing.

This Yang guy put it into a good phrasing - a 'Freedom Dividend' (re-branding the UBI)

To me, the point of a country should be to (insert VERY small list of things to do)

To achieve this, the country should collect enough tax from those using the country, to pay for the assurance of that small list.

In that list, I would put a bunch of things, but it's gotten complicated. If we could clear the decks, restart, I would say have the government provide minimal housing, adequate food, and as much education as anyone can slurp up, but give NOTHING to 'the needy'. See how good capitalism does without the usual slaves (in our time, wage-slaves)

[pErvinalia]

Giving nothing to the needy is pure capitalism. Living on the edge of survival allows for one to be exploited by capital to the greatest extent.