I'm a left wing Libertarian but am a climate Change skeptic. I don't care about anything except for the evidence and the evidence is that it is a farce and nothing else.
@23lFrench Frankly I don't think it is - there's plenty of interdisciplinary evidence that supports the conjecture that the warming globe is due to human activities.
From ice core samples we know that CO2 has driven climate in the past, and as we've observed the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increase, so we've seen it's predicted consequences. Shrinking arctic, antarctic and glacial ice around the world. Species moving progressively northwards. Ocean acidification. The list goes on and on.
Because the climate is reaching a threshold, possibly. It is possible that we might cross that threshold before we run out of oil. All it takes is a few more degrees, a few more square miles of the arctic melted, and the whole system changes. Sea levels can rise, weather currents can change direction. The ecosystem is made up of interdependent parts; each part affecting the function of the whole. We need to look at the big picture; and it's never good to play with fire, speaking metaphorically.
Alright, and if that happens, what? People die? They're going to die when governments regulate industry and prevent the production that keeps those extra people alive to begin with. So what difference does it make?
The problem with this video is the assumption that anyone who doesn't subscribe to AGW is someone who wants to burn rainforests, poison rivers, and club baby seals. It would be a great argument if the "deniers" thought that way, but that's not the case. He basically made an argument against an audience that doesn't truly exist.
Hmm... if that's what you got from it then I'm quite baffled. Because the entire point, as I stated at the beginning, was to give skeptics the benefit of the doubt. I said, "Okay, let's assume that AGW is just a myth; and let's look at all the OTHER environmental factors that might be of concern." So I went on to analyze the situation with oil, water, soil, etc.. leaving AGW behind. My case was FOR environmentalism, not for getting people to accept AGW. Hope that makes sense.
xx13moons: Alright, first of all, your target audience is people who do not believe in AGW. First off, you come off as condescending, rather than really wanting dialogue. So, people who don't believe in AGW are conspiracy theorists? Also, at 1:42, you label such people as "anti-environmentalists". So, again, I state that you assume people who don't toe the line with the popular AGW beliefs are anti-environment, which isn't true.
2) Even your video description shows this clearly. You address the anti-AGW crowd, and then come off as though such people wouldn't care about other environmental issues. Please, at least be honest here. Furthermore, since "Climategate", one of the defenses thus far has been to divert the issue to other environmental issues. Look, people who don't believe in AGW don't want to pllute the world, slash down trees, kill animals, etc.
Yep, that's what the title says. I address anyone who would deny that environmentalism is a valid cause. Global Warming generally fits into the category of "environmental concerns." I run into a lot of people who make the blanket assumption that: "the Earth is fine, altogether, our patterns of consumption do not negatively effect the ecosystem." and so I tried to debunk this nonsense.
@MrSuperpunch019, thanks, yea, I've come to expect the low ratings on videos where I address "controversial" subjects. There's a lot of wacky people out there with wacky ideas. I just try to stick with the evidence as best I can. Thanks again :)
This is all quite simple; the evidence for man-made climate change is quite mountainous. If you want to show that global warming is false, then you need to propose an entirely NEW hypothesis which can sufficiently explain the rise in temperature, the melting of the Larson A, B, and other ice-shelves; the rise in sea-temperature; the decreasing salinity in sea-water (from fresh-water ice melting) and so on. I'm willing to follow the science; if you can provide, I'm all ears.
I only said that because you questioned my usage of the word "theory." I run into that a lot, and quite simply, it's a mistake. Look in any Science textbook or Science-based website or magazine, etc.. it will give the same definition of theory as I did. How can two people have a meaningful discussion of we're not even agreeing on the definition of terms? No doubt there are a lot of idiots on youtube; my safety net is to assume that most are. Know what I mean?
"Theory" is a highest status that a Scientific concept can hold. It's not like there is hierarchy where something moves from 'theory' up to "fact.' There are Scientific "laws," but "law" is a term that is only used in physics, like the laws of thermodynamics. In Biology, Geology and other branches of Science, "theory" is the absolute closest thing to certainty.
They haven't. Perhaps you are thinking of a hypothesis. I'm just trying to make it clear that words are of importance in the scientific world. "Theory," means much more to Scientists than it does when someone like you or I says, "I have a theory of who stole my wallet." First it's speculation, then hypothesis, then they test, and re-test, fact-check, peer-review the hypothesis; and if it holds up to the process, it becomes "theory."
And by the way, since you "don't get into theories," I'll assume that you consider Gravity to be questionable at best; after all, it is called the THEORY OF GRAVITY, i.e. gravitational theory. Think about that for a second; in the eyes of science, evolution and global warming are no more or no less established than GRAVITY. So please, do not sit there and lecture me on the differences between propaganda and science. You've made it very clear that your understanding of science is elementary.
Jesus Christ I get so unbelievable tired of people saying things like "I don't get into theories, I prefer facts." Please, please, please for the love of god, LOOK UP the definition of a Scientific Theory. Theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
It would take a HELL of a lot more than some hacked e-mails to disprove an extremely well-established scientific model, wouldn't it now? I recommend that you take a clear, unbiased look at how science actually works before you rush to any silly conclusions (which conspiracy theorists have a HORRIBLE habit of doing, no offense.) Global warming is supported by tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research articles; taking into account biology, ecology, geography, physics and much more. Nice try.
"Global warming is at best a theory," really? Again? I have to address this nonsense for the THIRD time today? Like I said to 2 other people today; gravity is a theory. There is no difference between a theory and a fact. Theories explain and interpret facts. Scientists do NOT use the term "theory" in the same way that the average person does.
It's been awhile, but if I recall correctly, it's a matter of theory vs. law in science, and that the "law of gravity" is not considered theory. So, whether it's true or not, AGW isn't law, but theory.
No. I made an entire different video JUST about this. The term "law" is only used in physics, i.e. the laws of thermodynamics. Theory is the highest status that a scientific idea can gain. There is nothing "above" theory. Theories incorporate laws and facts! Laws and facts are a dime a dozen; it's a fact that the sun is hot, it's a fact that the sun is bright. Facts are useless. We need a theory to explain HOW and WHY the sun is hot and bright; theories make sense of and explain facts and laws.
xx13moons: Well, as far as theory vs. law, I'll buy that. However, the semantics aside, I will still say that AGW is theory, in a non-scientific sense. As of yet, I haven't been convinced, even when I was being brainwashed with it back in middle school.
"theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" Just for reference, from the Oxford Dictionary. "Theory" does not mean uncertain. It means something entirely different to scientists than it does to the average person, i.e. a hunch, a best guess, etc..
Also, there is Newton's "universal law of gravitation." Nonetheless, gravity is almost always referred to as a theory in the Scientific community. But that's just physics. The term "law" is not used in biology, ecology, environmental science, geography, etc...
Of course it now a law - it CAN'T be a law. The term "law" isn't ever used in that sense. So that statement is rather redundant. Otherwise, your welcome to believe whatever you wish. I'm perfectly happy with the status of "theory." Theories is all we can ever have, really, and science recognizes the limitations of our knowledge. We can never TRULY know anything for %100 certain - not even our own existence (postmodernists are annoying.)
theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
I don't intend to sound like an ass by saying all of that, it's just like,... I keep running into people who feel the need to lecture me on science (which is fine, if they know what they're talking about,) but they make it clear that they don't even know what basic scientific terms mean, i.e. Theory. It's totally improper for someone to say something like, "it's just a theory." That makes no sense; that's ALL there is in science, is theories. There is no higher "status" than theory.
Well, first, I have not read all 2,000 pages of the hacked data (have you? I'll assume so since you're talking about it.) Second, nothing that I've seen so far from the hacked data is evidence against global warming. A few sentences taken completely out of context; and the rest which shows rather juvenile quarreling between scientists (who are also human being, imagine that!) Third, global warming is a scientific model supported by decades of scientific data.
Cap and trade is about making money and controlling energy usage for political means, it has nothing to do with the environment. You're being fooled in thinking its about "saving the planet" or some other slogan. Ken"Enron" Lay was one of the people who came up with the scheme for crying out load.
Maybe I am being fooled; but why do people like you ALWAYS decide to point the finger before looking in the mirror? Perhaps it is you who is being fooled? It is possible, right? When it comes to government policy; it's ALWAYS about money. But wait, Obama hasn't passed ANY environmental polices thus far, so who's making money? The profit lies with NOT addressing the problem. How is that hard to see? The ecosystem is being destroyed; if you can't see that now - sadly, you will see too much later.
Everyone seems to want to point a finger at "cap and trade," and say this is a money-making scheme. Yet they continue to ignore the fact that during the 8-years of Bush; environmental policies were ignored, and data suppressed. What is the single biggest profit-maker in the world?? OIL. NOTHING could hurt profit more than the realization that burning oil is harming our planet. So who's being fooled exactly? We're all lining the pockets of the rich with our oil consumption.
Maybe 5 weeks old, little baby Siamese, lol. Well, half Siamese. And true, we are a part of the environment; so the who issue is intertwined with "self." Sadly, due to 2,000 years of nature-hating monotheism; people still have a hard time realizing that above all else, we are primates, animals. We still arrogantly think of ourselves as a species apart from or "higher than" nature. :(
Well I have to run out to the store for a few minutes. Thanks for the intelligent and respectful discussion everyone :) Let me know if you ever need any support with anything.
By the way, I found it odd that, about an hour after I put this video up it had maybe 30 views, and about 18 out of the 30 views rated it; all one stars. That's strange because in the past I've had videos that have had near 1,000 views and maybe only 3-5 people bothered to rate. Not to sound self-important here but I think someone with sock-accounts really dislikes pro-environmental videos, and decided to dedicate his time to 1-starring my video over and over as soon as it came out. Who knows.
- i won't buy it. It's not handy for people to just stop driving cars because environmentalists would prefer them too, it's not okay to deprive people of meat who are poor and cannot afford to shop at smug organic markets where they claim "it is better for the environment" we need to fix the poverty and the homelessness, get off our high horses and stop bragging out our hemp bags and help people out. That's how i feel. Plain and simple, i respect your views, and i hope you can respect mine.
I look at it this way: what is poverty? A lack of resources; food, water, shelter, etc. Where do these resources come from? The Planet. Why are so many people lacking so many resources? Because of rabid over-consumption here in the west; where the wealthiest 20% (this includes us) consumes 60% (and sometimes well over) of oil, water, food, energy and every other valuable resource that ALL humans need. We use it all up, and only leave crumbs behind for the other 80% of humans.
I see poverty as a social problem - our government and economic system playing a huge role. People are lacking because of mental illness in homeless people > not getting jobs > remaining homeless because lack of enough social programs. Capitalism sucking jobs dry > exploiting humans > no jobs > no food.
Capitalism is exactly that which provides jobs and opportunities for those who would otherwise live in poverty. Didn't you know that. These people were living in straw huts and eating mud until a McDonald's and a Wal-Mart went up in their area, giving them wonderful jobs!
Hm, since you bring up meat: I rarely buy it because it's quite expensive, organic or not (although I only buy organic). I don't think anyone deprives people of meat anyway. I think people have choices, admittedly proportional to their income. But many lower income people still have choices. Some opt for designer clothes, tech gadgets, make-up & hair salon treatments (I work with many that match this description). Others opt for environmentally & physically healthy choices.
Oh no, i didn't mean poor people in cars, i meant not having a car is not plausible for a lot of people who need to drive a lot etc...it's a pain taking transit allover for groceries etc, a real pain literally your back hurts ha
Hi antique. I think that both sides are making good points, and you know I pull no punches when it comes to poverty; this is how I see it: both the poverty in the world and the current damage to the environment basically comes down to the way in which the capitalist markets. Essentially, we are told we have a 'choice' to change things such as the environment, 3rd world poverty, homelessness, etc. through boycotting, giving to charitiies, buying 'green' products, etc.- but for many (cont'd)....
... that isn't a real choice (like you say), and so they won't do it. So what we need to do is get rid of this stupid 'you as an individual can change the world through spending your money in a different way' mentality, and instead recognise as a society that this sort of consumerism simply cannot be sustained, that we need to both build a more fair & redistributive, AND more sustainable society in order to benefit everyone. This society simply cannot be capitalist.
Yes, not having a car isn't always more convenient. But I argued that we rely on too much convenience, which got us into our environmental mess.
I've never had a car or a driver since I moved out from home/emigrated at 19/20. I carry or bike everything i buy home. Yeah, a bit of a pain sometimes, but that's not the point.
I'm tempted to draw some comparisons to porn but won't go there right now.
Isn't plausible for people living under the poverty line, nor would they care. This is my stance as well on not eating meat. If a starving child wanted food, and i had a chicken, i'd give it to that child to slaughter and eat with his family. I think with extreme environmentalism and animal rights, we forget about human rights and the little guy - I mean al gore is a huge, powerful man who can control what is given out to the world CONT.
I was just waiting for the infamous word "extreme".
It implies a certain standard, polarity.
I use this word very rarely as it is so loaded and, at least in this case, has a very negative annotation.
I don't base my views on Al Gore's film, it was only 1 well-known example. I regret having brought it up. There are countless other sources, obviously.
Yea, a lot of negative publicity is directed towards Gore. And many people falsely assume that Gore is like the Pope of the environmental movement. Not true at all. In fact, I find Gore to be hardly worth mentioning. Which is why I never bring his name up in conversations like this, unless someone else mentions him. I do think that Gore is trying to "capitalize" off of the green-movement, and that his motives may be somewhat questionable. But one persons greed does not discredit science.
Exactly, wouldn't that be similar to people bashing Shelley Lubben because she has a Christian agenda? No different to me. As long as his facts are correct, Al Gore can make more movies for the rest of his life as far as I'm concerned.
To CPC: I agree with you about Al Gore. As long as his facts are correct and can be backed up I hope that he continues to spread the word. I'm not thrilled with his personal lifestyle choices which don't support what he's preaching, (i.e. quadrupling his impact on the earth by having 4 children), but that shouldn't stop people from being open to truly looking at the damage that is being done to planet Earth from over consuming, over polluting and over populating. The facts are what matter.
Just to clear my views up - i respect everyone's view here, i think you are all intelligent people with great points and i respect your lifestyles. I just think, the going green thing is really taking away light from issues like poverty etc. I am sorry but go tell a homeless man on the street to give a shit about the earth, he won't he wants to eat. To me, the green, al gore stuff is a product of our privileged culture, i am not saying we shouldn't care, but "go buy a hybrid" "stop doing this"
I agree, green culture CAN be very elitist, but not in EVERY aspect.
I am not going to tell a homeless man to go green.
Most of us are not homeless men.
Most of us have many options every day. Most of us spent lots of $ on things we could do without. Most of us could do more to lessen our ecol. footprint daily.
Having less is not about being rich. I am not rich (just above poverty income line), although I do count my privileges.
I realize we're not homeless, i just think we should try to look through the eyes of the poor more often then we do. I own hardly anything new, and that's not for environmental reasons, it's for reasons that i am simply not materialistic. I just think the whole environmental blow out is very influenced by the media and the shock value from it. Also, politicians know they can use it, so they do. I know this sounds lame of me, but i can't help but challenge this idea of eco-footprints and al gore
To me, these issues are important, they are just not as important as human beings. I'm sorry you are bothered so much by this, but this is how i feel.
Again I agree. I don't see these issues as separated by a hierarchy of importance from which the individual must choose. I think there's good reason to believe that they're directly related. To me, environmentalism IS human rights issue; since all humans depend upon the environment for their survival.
It doesn't "bother me so much" that it's you, but I'm addressing you because I wanted to know where you're coming from (knowing your take on porn). I simply wanted to hear your reasons because I couldn't explain them to myself.
Hmm.... the thing is (as far as I see it), environmentalism ties directly in to social issues. The fact that there is so little good soil left in the earth means that agricultural food is lacking, and many people starve as a result. Water is being depleted. Ecosystems are being destroyed and this effects the food chain; species eat other species, obviously. And humans rely on all species for food. Poverty is directly related to overpopulation. But I'm not here to badger, too each their own.
See to me, it's only a social issue to those of us who can actually bring environmentalism into our lives. I just mean, that, i don't think homeless people, poor people etc are caring about the environment, because their basic needs are not met, i think the environment is just overshadowing other problems, politicians are spending so much money on it and completley forgetting about people.
I know this is a very marxist view, but i can't help but see this through the eyes of the poor. I am not to badger either, since I respect you very much and you are very intelligent, and kind.
I totally agree. I just happen to think that promoting sustainable ways of living and consumption is one of the best ways to address the problem of poverty. I think that's what many people miss. It's not like "choose a cause; either social or environmental issues." I see them as directly related to one another; meaning that BY addressing environmental problems, we might be able to solve the many other issues that are a result of our over-consumption: poverty, etc. But perhaps I am wrong.
I totally agree with you (xx13) on overpopulation being an issue not just in 'those other' [not quoting you] countries.
I wanted to add to my previous comment:
For half my life I've been trying to grasp why so many people don't relate to the state of the earth. I've often wondered if Germany Hitler opponents felt similar at the dawn of his era, when it was unpopular (not yet criminal) to voice your concerns about the insane pop culture emerging. Decades later it's easy to agree on...
...the evils of Hitler Germany. But what atrocities are we committing TODAY in the name of pleasure, convenience & profits? When raising awareness about 'ecocide', eyebrows get raised & one is likely labeled 'too serious', negative, or weirdo. Maybe I've learned too much about what's going on worldwide to be ignorant. It's not pleasant. It's very painful & depressing. But I'd rather know than be ignorant. I don't know how people can live this way, esp. as parents.
Yes, people don't like cynicism and pessimism. Positive Psychology and wishful thinking is very popular in America these days: "I know that everything may LOOK a mess; but it's all really okay! Just close your eyes and think positive." Like Dorthy, wishing her way back to Kansas. You said, "I would rather know than be ignorant." Many wouldn't - ignorance IS bliss for so many, it seems. See no evil, hear no evil.
Ugh, i hate the new age "positive thinking" garbage in America, people need to open their eyes, and look at all the hungry, homeless, poor people that are living with nothing, let alone "green bags" and solar panels.
I had a course at school "Psychology of Disease". Our teacher was totally into this film; we were tested on this crap! I asked her if she thinks that 80% of the world chooses to live in abject poverty, or if a woman chooses to get raped (if she did); reply 'yes'.
I do, however, think that we're responsible for much of our lives & need positivity to fire our drive to improve our lives. Where our total resp. begins & ends is beyond anyone.
xx13moons, I really appreciate the positive approach actually! That's the irony, as cheesy as it may sound; I see so much beauty in the world (can be in the built environment, too) that it hurts me when it gets destroyed. Its as if a person gets hurt. I don't distinguish.
'Environmentalism' is not all about being cynical/pessimistic. Contrary, it's about awakening to the beauty of life on this planet. Honoring what we've been given.
I agree that it's not about cynicism or pessimism. It's about preserving beauty and life. But many people who are not environmentalists SEE it as being cynical. Because before we are able to change our situation, we must first realize how BAD it really is. You can't get rid of a problem without first acknowledging that it exists.
It seems that, similar to porn, the way we view & treat our envt is based on culture & some often hard to identify personal factors - my family always considered me odd for caring abt the envt, so I didn't get it from them.
However, in Germany, where I grew up, env. issues are constantly in the news and on politicians agenda. Not that there's not controversy around many of them, but still. Also, the difference of env. action in Germany & North Am. is HUGE. Blows my mind every time I visit.
I should add: "giving a damn" is admittedly a big & vague statement. What I mean is that I almost everyone I meet tells me I take the environment "too seriously", when really what I'm doing still seems little to what I COULD do. Many "eco actions" are so much easier than people may think. E.g. not using a laundry dryer, or composting, or not owning a car, or washable menstrual pads (yes indeed), or cutting down on waste, or consuming less, or making more things yourself....this list is endless.
xx13moons, you are AWESOME! Thanks for speaking out on this ever so unpopular topic, environment. I've been a so-called environmentalist from my mid-teens, and ever since, I can count the number of people I met who give a damn about the environment on 1 hand. Before starting my B. of Env.Studies, I was excited to meet so many like-minded people. But even in my program most seemed to be there for a job only. Even more so later during my MES.
Thanks again for caring enough to risk your popularity.
Hi! Thanks for your support again. I'm also glad to meet someone else who cares about this issue. And I see that you've even studied it in college? That's awesome. I'd really like to go back to college to study Ecology. I don't have any formal training in this area; I guess I just read a lot. Speaking of that, have you read "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann? One of my favorite books on environmentalism.
As a lifelong committed environmentalist I agree with you 100%! :-) So I thank you for making this video & for speaking out about this important issue. You made many excellent points, & posed many pertinent questions for those who don't think environmentalism is important. Good luck to them in coming up with any rational response!
And may I just say that the ending of this video with your adorable kitten was the best surprise ending that I've ever seen here on YouTube. TOTALLY ADORABLE! :-)
CPC wrote: "APB!!!!!! Will you marry me!?!?!!? :-))"
-
LOL!!!! :-) I almost hurt myself laughing so loud at that. ;-) But now that I've read your comment to xx13moons, I can kind of understand your "proposal." ;-) It is SO disturbing that so many of your peers have abandoned their true environmentalism. Wow. Scary. :-(
Anyway, sure I'll marry you if you're OK with a long-distance "Internet marriage." ;-) We could have the ceremony here in the comments section & xx13moons could officiate! ;-)
HAHAHAH!!! I have tears in my eyes (there could be many reasons for that)!
The last part! xx13moons, what do you say!?!?! HELLO, ARE YOU THERE!?!
Who would have expected THIS on your vid on environmentalism? And so quick, it was love @ first sight! I wish i could upload a quick vid with a church photo & an organ playing (actually I could, I have organ loops on Garageband)...LOOOOLLLL!
APB, I hope he won't kick us out now. Too much fun :-[]
Hello, thanks for your support on this. Like you said in another comment, you can't expect that, people who agree with you on one issue (porn) will agree with you on everything else. So I wasn't too sure about making this video, thinking that I didn't want to offend the few supports that I have already. But I'm glad to see these comments; even those who disagree with my position have been very respectful. BTW, I went to Borders earlier today and picked up "Pornified," great book so far!
Not sure if you meant that I "can't expect others to agree with me on everything".
I don't. I just don't understand how s.o. can be so insightful about the correlations among porn and its subtopics, yet not be as aware about a much more fundamental issue. We depend on this planet in every way. *Technically* more than the sexes depend on each other. But I don't believe in making a distinction here, hence my surprise.
We could learn a lot from Aboriginal traditions....
IMO ,selling human beings doesn't really correlate with a theory presented by a politician that caused a nation to freak out and "go green" not to mention half the shit like "go green tshirts" and bags are probably made by starving children in sweat shops..., I agree we depend on the planet...but i also think we could be going through something natural, and i'd rather spend my resources helping humans than saving trees and not eating meat, that's all.
..but, that's exactly the thing here.... saving trees and (though I'm not a vegetarian) not eating meat DOES help humans. It's all intertwined. Trees = ecosystems = plentiful species = food for humans. And meat consumption (the way we eat it in the west) vastly contributes to water pollution and using millions of tons of grain/plant-food to feed animals. (the amount of plant-food that is used for ONE cow, for example; could otherwise feed about a dozen people.) But no, we need that for fast-food
But I'm not the type to be all, "agree with me or die." So I digress and I will leave it at that. You're not one of those evil-capitalist bastards; and you're obviously very conscious about a plethora of very important issues; so who am I to complain or judge. It's all good, heh.
To antiquelens: I respect your right to have your own opinion on this issue and to state it in any way you like, but I personally would find it extremely helpful if you would be willing to elaborate on what it is you disagree with in this video and why. Also, many questions are posed in this video, and I was wondering if you would be willing to respond to any of them. I would be curious to know what your position is. Thanks in advance if you're willing to take the time to do this. :-)
Well, mostly that i don't buy into the whole global warming thing - I think we do contirbute to our polluted earth, but i think the warming could possibly be a natural happening. I guess, i just didn't want to jump on the green boat - i mean, obviously i care about the environment, but i've never been one to be passionate about it, i am definitely a skeptic. that's all.
Antiquelens: Did you watch Al Gore's movie? Or any David Suzuki films? One of David S.'s docs made me decide to go vegan over night (I was a vegan for 6 yrs).
I admit, i feel a bit out of sorts in this dialouge, simply because i am worried you two think less of me now, and of my work in feminism, you know? Maybe i am just being paranoid as usual :(
Well, I just can't explain to myself why there is a disconnect for many, or you, in this case. To me, the so-called environment is everywhere, we depend on it with every breath. The words of many traditional cultures that everything is connected to everything else ring so true, intellectually, spiritually & emotionally.
You make a lot of connections among the topics of porn, violence, society, gender, etc. I don't know why something as fundamental as the envt. would have lower priority.
I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but I'm responding anyway. I tend to agree that all of these issues are related; especially feminism, women's rights and ecology. Thus Ecofeminism. There are OBVIOUS correlations between women's rights and overpopulation. The more empowered women are in a culture; the more control they have over their own reproductive rights and choices (abortion, birth control, etc..) In traditional monotheistic-patriarchal cultures, women were treated like cattle..
They were expected to do nothing more than pump out a child every nine months (and this is still the case in many third-world Islamic nations.) In early western culture, it was the same way; but then Women's rights came along; women were given more rights over their own bodies; and they began having less and less children, as it was now there choice entirely. This is why the population is exploding in Islamic countries, while here in the west it is static;
now, you might think, "okay, so?" I tend to think that overpopulation is directly tied to many social and environmental problems (starvation and the spread of disease especially.) The population has exploded over the last century from 2 billion to nearly 7 billion people; having huge consequences on our planet. The way I see it: women's rights = healthier environment, merely because the population slows down and this is always a good thing in a world where 30 million starve each year.
Sorry for all the comments; perhaps I will consider making a video later on addressing the topic of ecofeminism; it is very interesting. But thank you for your comments and support :)
Dear antiquelens: No need to be worried about me thinking less of your feminist work. I have no unrealistic expectations about agreeing with everyone who is against porn, etc., on every other issue. It would be nice, but I'm not going to be upset if it's not the case. ;-) In the same way that I support Shelley Lubben's pro-woman anti-porn activism even though she's a Christian & that's not relatable to me, I'll continue to support you enthusiastically even if you're not an environmentalist. :-)
Yeah - that's how i am with Shelley too,I look beyond her religious beliefs, that i don't share, and realize she's an amazing person and woman despite our different views on life, you know?
Antiquelens, I feel that the 'environment' is common ground for all, despite our spiritual beliefs. At the very least, we can agree to treat our planet respectfully with a view to a high quality of life for current & future generations. I can look beyond someone's religion (although it usually ties into values + actions), but it's hard for me to look beyond someone's actions that harm the world we live in, esp. in light of the vast information available about our ecological dilemma.
I don't want to sound condescending in this comment, so please don't that it that way. When it comes to environmentalism, I really think it's a matter of becoming conscious of the information that is out there. There's a lot to take in. I agree, some of the more mainstream voices on the issue, like Al Gore, are guilty of doom-saying; and this alarmist approach causes many to embrace skepticism. On the other hand, the pure, raw scientific data (the kind that most people aren't familiar with)...
I'm trying to take a step back, I don't understand:
I feel like I'm in a discussion about porn.
Yes, "scientific data" is useful to convince people. But why is it necessary? Which part of ecological destruction, ecosystem exploitation, overconsumption & any enviro disaster out there don't people understand? Have they been sleeping for the last few centuries, or since they were born? Too much YT?!? I can't stay unemotional. It enrages me, totally blows my mind.
No I agree. I think it's just one of those issues where it benefits people (so they imagine) to be complacent and apathetic; they don't WANT to think about it, because if it is true, the implications for our way of living and seeing the world are profound. It's one of those issues that seems to be "larger than life," some people find it hard to understand how us puny humans could have such a potentially devastating effect on something as massive as the planet.
seems to point to a rather obvious conclusion; we're messing up the ecosystem, big-time. Obviously, I don't expect you to take my words at face-value; but if you are ever interested in learning more about the issue (and if it ain't your thing, that's fine, we all have our own battles,) I could point you to some wonderful book titles or documentaries. One that comes to mind right away is "Home," a wonderful free-documentary that you can find in full-form here on youtube;
(cont.) I think "Home" is in my favorites. It's not so much a rant on global warming as it is a simple history of the Earth, human civilization and how the two impact one-another. The imagery is spectacular and it received quite good reviews. Geology, Biology, Oil, Agriculture are all discussed; in a matter-of-fact kind of way. Check it out if you're interested; if not, that's cool too, heh :)
I know my opinion on enviormentalism will get me killed on here, but that's okay. I understand the whole idea behind it, maybe i'm too cynical to notice, who knows. I just really did not like Al Gore's propaganda film - I'll keep looking around, until then, i'm stickin' to human rights issues.
But yeah to ferechi, apparently the world is ending anyway :-P I have a family member who is warning me constantly, it's ridiculous.
What do you to have say now that new information indicates that for over a decade, climate scientists around the world have conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change?
What I have to say about that is, not to sound sarcastic or arrogant, but it's completely irrelevant to the point of my video - in which in intentionally ignore the subject of climate change and address the numerous OTHER environmental problems such as Oil, water/food shortages, the depletion of soil, and so on...
Also, I'd be happy to see this "new information that indicates that for over a decade, climate scientists... have conspired to overstate the case....etc.." What are your sources exactly? Alex Jones? Glenn Beck (forgive me if my assumptions are wrong.) But every single scientific peer-reviewed article I've read has overwhelmingly pointed to the "man-made global warming" hypothesis. (Also, "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery)
Well I guess the fundie Christians will say that the invironment is not so important because the end times is near.
They need conspiracies (Illuminati, New World Order, environment theories, HAARP, chmtrails ext ext) to claim that their farytale Bible is correct (Book of revelations).
Fundies dont have much responcabilities. because they have their fanasy God.
Yea good point. Why care about the planet when Jesus will be coming back to fix our mistakes? It's sad that so many people hold such a destructive worldview. What's worse is that they'll be long dead when their grandchildren are in need of an explanation as to why their ancestors left them with a dying and depleted planet. And most of the conspiracy theorists are just as bad. Thanks for watching, rating and commenting.
I'm a left wing Libertarian but am a climate Change skeptic. I don't care about anything except for the evidence and the evidence is that it is a farce and nothing else.
23lFrench 7 months ago
@23lFrench Frankly I don't think it is - there's plenty of interdisciplinary evidence that supports the conjecture that the warming globe is due to human activities.
From ice core samples we know that CO2 has driven climate in the past, and as we've observed the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increase, so we've seen it's predicted consequences. Shrinking arctic, antarctic and glacial ice around the world. Species moving progressively northwards. Ocean acidification. The list goes on and on.
Keinlicht 5 months ago
If we're going to run out of oil within 20 or 30 years, then why the hell are you worried about global warming?
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Because the climate is reaching a threshold, possibly. It is possible that we might cross that threshold before we run out of oil. All it takes is a few more degrees, a few more square miles of the arctic melted, and the whole system changes. Sea levels can rise, weather currents can change direction. The ecosystem is made up of interdependent parts; each part affecting the function of the whole. We need to look at the big picture; and it's never good to play with fire, speaking metaphorically.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Alright, and if that happens, what? People die? They're going to die when governments regulate industry and prevent the production that keeps those extra people alive to begin with. So what difference does it make?
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
I can't say that I really understand this comment, so, yea. Thanks anyways for the discussion.
xx13moons 2 years ago
The problem with this video is the assumption that anyone who doesn't subscribe to AGW is someone who wants to burn rainforests, poison rivers, and club baby seals. It would be a great argument if the "deniers" thought that way, but that's not the case. He basically made an argument against an audience that doesn't truly exist.
Philhelm 2 years ago
Hmm... if that's what you got from it then I'm quite baffled. Because the entire point, as I stated at the beginning, was to give skeptics the benefit of the doubt. I said, "Okay, let's assume that AGW is just a myth; and let's look at all the OTHER environmental factors that might be of concern." So I went on to analyze the situation with oil, water, soil, etc.. leaving AGW behind. My case was FOR environmentalism, not for getting people to accept AGW. Hope that makes sense.
xx13moons 2 years ago
xx13moons: Alright, first of all, your target audience is people who do not believe in AGW. First off, you come off as condescending, rather than really wanting dialogue. So, people who don't believe in AGW are conspiracy theorists? Also, at 1:42, you label such people as "anti-environmentalists". So, again, I state that you assume people who don't toe the line with the popular AGW beliefs are anti-environment, which isn't true.
Philhelm 2 years ago
2) Even your video description shows this clearly. You address the anti-AGW crowd, and then come off as though such people wouldn't care about other environmental issues. Please, at least be honest here. Furthermore, since "Climategate", one of the defenses thus far has been to divert the issue to other environmental issues. Look, people who don't believe in AGW don't want to pllute the world, slash down trees, kill animals, etc.
Philhelm 2 years ago
Yep, that's what the title says. I address anyone who would deny that environmentalism is a valid cause. Global Warming generally fits into the category of "environmental concerns." I run into a lot of people who make the blanket assumption that: "the Earth is fine, altogether, our patterns of consumption do not negatively effect the ecosystem." and so I tried to debunk this nonsense.
xx13moons 2 years ago
@MrSuperpunch019, thanks, yea, I've come to expect the low ratings on videos where I address "controversial" subjects. There's a lot of wacky people out there with wacky ideas. I just try to stick with the evidence as best I can. Thanks again :)
xx13moons 2 years ago
This is all quite simple; the evidence for man-made climate change is quite mountainous. If you want to show that global warming is false, then you need to propose an entirely NEW hypothesis which can sufficiently explain the rise in temperature, the melting of the Larson A, B, and other ice-shelves; the rise in sea-temperature; the decreasing salinity in sea-water (from fresh-water ice melting) and so on. I'm willing to follow the science; if you can provide, I'm all ears.
xx13moons 2 years ago
I only said that because you questioned my usage of the word "theory." I run into that a lot, and quite simply, it's a mistake. Look in any Science textbook or Science-based website or magazine, etc.. it will give the same definition of theory as I did. How can two people have a meaningful discussion of we're not even agreeing on the definition of terms? No doubt there are a lot of idiots on youtube; my safety net is to assume that most are. Know what I mean?
xx13moons 2 years ago
"Theory" is a highest status that a Scientific concept can hold. It's not like there is hierarchy where something moves from 'theory' up to "fact.' There are Scientific "laws," but "law" is a term that is only used in physics, like the laws of thermodynamics. In Biology, Geology and other branches of Science, "theory" is the absolute closest thing to certainty.
xx13moons 2 years ago
They haven't. Perhaps you are thinking of a hypothesis. I'm just trying to make it clear that words are of importance in the scientific world. "Theory," means much more to Scientists than it does when someone like you or I says, "I have a theory of who stole my wallet." First it's speculation, then hypothesis, then they test, and re-test, fact-check, peer-review the hypothesis; and if it holds up to the process, it becomes "theory."
xx13moons 2 years ago
And by the way, since you "don't get into theories," I'll assume that you consider Gravity to be questionable at best; after all, it is called the THEORY OF GRAVITY, i.e. gravitational theory. Think about that for a second; in the eyes of science, evolution and global warming are no more or no less established than GRAVITY. So please, do not sit there and lecture me on the differences between propaganda and science. You've made it very clear that your understanding of science is elementary.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Jesus Christ I get so unbelievable tired of people saying things like "I don't get into theories, I prefer facts." Please, please, please for the love of god, LOOK UP the definition of a Scientific Theory. Theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
xx13moons 2 years ago
It would take a HELL of a lot more than some hacked e-mails to disprove an extremely well-established scientific model, wouldn't it now? I recommend that you take a clear, unbiased look at how science actually works before you rush to any silly conclusions (which conspiracy theorists have a HORRIBLE habit of doing, no offense.) Global warming is supported by tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research articles; taking into account biology, ecology, geography, physics and much more. Nice try.
xx13moons 2 years ago
13moons, I respect your opinion. Mine was sort of the same about 10 years ago.
If the data in said Global Warming model was cherry picked as they say it is. The model is junk.
I have a book called 1001 science facts from when I was a kid in the late 70's. Quite a few of those facts have been proven wrong.
Global warming is at best a theory, and I don't much appreciate them Teaching my children that it is fact.
Why would the IPCC have to falsify data if good data was out there ?
ibnmissing 2 years ago
"Global warming is at best a theory," really? Again? I have to address this nonsense for the THIRD time today? Like I said to 2 other people today; gravity is a theory. There is no difference between a theory and a fact. Theories explain and interpret facts. Scientists do NOT use the term "theory" in the same way that the average person does.
xx13moons 2 years ago
It's been awhile, but if I recall correctly, it's a matter of theory vs. law in science, and that the "law of gravity" is not considered theory. So, whether it's true or not, AGW isn't law, but theory.
Philhelm 2 years ago
No. I made an entire different video JUST about this. The term "law" is only used in physics, i.e. the laws of thermodynamics. Theory is the highest status that a scientific idea can gain. There is nothing "above" theory. Theories incorporate laws and facts! Laws and facts are a dime a dozen; it's a fact that the sun is hot, it's a fact that the sun is bright. Facts are useless. We need a theory to explain HOW and WHY the sun is hot and bright; theories make sense of and explain facts and laws.
xx13moons 2 years ago
xx13moons: Well, as far as theory vs. law, I'll buy that. However, the semantics aside, I will still say that AGW is theory, in a non-scientific sense. As of yet, I haven't been convinced, even when I was being brainwashed with it back in middle school.
Philhelm 2 years ago
"theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" Just for reference, from the Oxford Dictionary. "Theory" does not mean uncertain. It means something entirely different to scientists than it does to the average person, i.e. a hunch, a best guess, etc..
xx13moons 2 years ago
Also, there is Newton's "universal law of gravitation." Nonetheless, gravity is almost always referred to as a theory in the Scientific community. But that's just physics. The term "law" is not used in biology, ecology, environmental science, geography, etc...
xx13moons 2 years ago
Of course it now a law - it CAN'T be a law. The term "law" isn't ever used in that sense. So that statement is rather redundant. Otherwise, your welcome to believe whatever you wish. I'm perfectly happy with the status of "theory." Theories is all we can ever have, really, and science recognizes the limitations of our knowledge. We can never TRULY know anything for %100 certain - not even our own existence (postmodernists are annoying.)
xx13moons 2 years ago
theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
xx13moons 2 years ago
I don't intend to sound like an ass by saying all of that, it's just like,... I keep running into people who feel the need to lecture me on science (which is fine, if they know what they're talking about,) but they make it clear that they don't even know what basic scientific terms mean, i.e. Theory. It's totally improper for someone to say something like, "it's just a theory." That makes no sense; that's ALL there is in science, is theories. There is no higher "status" than theory.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Please don't get upset, I enjoy your vids and your viewpoint.
You sound like a very moral and ethical guy and in the end thats all that matters.
My point is that there is still debate on about the validity of the data.
ibnmissing 2 years ago
Well, first, I have not read all 2,000 pages of the hacked data (have you? I'll assume so since you're talking about it.) Second, nothing that I've seen so far from the hacked data is evidence against global warming. A few sentences taken completely out of context; and the rest which shows rather juvenile quarreling between scientists (who are also human being, imagine that!) Third, global warming is a scientific model supported by decades of scientific data.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Cap and trade is about making money and controlling energy usage for political means, it has nothing to do with the environment. You're being fooled in thinking its about "saving the planet" or some other slogan. Ken"Enron" Lay was one of the people who came up with the scheme for crying out load.
Northern5tar 2 years ago
Maybe I am being fooled; but why do people like you ALWAYS decide to point the finger before looking in the mirror? Perhaps it is you who is being fooled? It is possible, right? When it comes to government policy; it's ALWAYS about money. But wait, Obama hasn't passed ANY environmental polices thus far, so who's making money? The profit lies with NOT addressing the problem. How is that hard to see? The ecosystem is being destroyed; if you can't see that now - sadly, you will see too much later.
xx13moons 2 years ago
IMHO, global pollution is more of a problem than climate change. Nothing is created without byproducts or waste generation/ emissions.
Carbon trading will never work because the Industrial nations will never agree to it even if the U.S. does.
I'm all for environmentalism as long a common sense is applied.
ibnmissing 2 years ago
Everyone seems to want to point a finger at "cap and trade," and say this is a money-making scheme. Yet they continue to ignore the fact that during the 8-years of Bush; environmental policies were ignored, and data suppressed. What is the single biggest profit-maker in the world?? OIL. NOTHING could hurt profit more than the realization that burning oil is harming our planet. So who's being fooled exactly? We're all lining the pockets of the rich with our oil consumption.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Cap and Trade will not effect the bottom line of the rich, it's just creating more wealth for elites like Al Gore.
Creating more suffering and higher energy taxes for people like us.
Check out Gore's company call "Generation Investment Management" , nick named Blood and Gore.
They stand to make alot of cheese from Cap and Trade and our energy costs will go through the roof !
ibnmissing 2 years ago
How old is your little kittycat, and what's his/her name!? Little angel!
PS: Great point made at the end :-)
I'd add, if you hate the environment, you hate yourself. Could this be the answer to why we're in this mess?
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
Maybe 5 weeks old, little baby Siamese, lol. Well, half Siamese. And true, we are a part of the environment; so the who issue is intertwined with "self." Sadly, due to 2,000 years of nature-hating monotheism; people still have a hard time realizing that above all else, we are primates, animals. We still arrogantly think of ourselves as a species apart from or "higher than" nature. :(
xx13moons 2 years ago
Al Gore has his own money making agenda.
ibnmissing 2 years ago
Well I have to run out to the store for a few minutes. Thanks for the intelligent and respectful discussion everyone :) Let me know if you ever need any support with anything.
xx13moons 2 years ago
By the way, I found it odd that, about an hour after I put this video up it had maybe 30 views, and about 18 out of the 30 views rated it; all one stars. That's strange because in the past I've had videos that have had near 1,000 views and maybe only 3-5 people bothered to rate. Not to sound self-important here but I think someone with sock-accounts really dislikes pro-environmental videos, and decided to dedicate his time to 1-starring my video over and over as soon as it came out. Who knows.
xx13moons 2 years ago
The whole thing just seemed fishy, when I considered it compared to my experience of youtube.
xx13moons 2 years ago
- i won't buy it. It's not handy for people to just stop driving cars because environmentalists would prefer them too, it's not okay to deprive people of meat who are poor and cannot afford to shop at smug organic markets where they claim "it is better for the environment" we need to fix the poverty and the homelessness, get off our high horses and stop bragging out our hemp bags and help people out. That's how i feel. Plain and simple, i respect your views, and i hope you can respect mine.
antiquelens 2 years ago
I look at it this way: what is poverty? A lack of resources; food, water, shelter, etc. Where do these resources come from? The Planet. Why are so many people lacking so many resources? Because of rabid over-consumption here in the west; where the wealthiest 20% (this includes us) consumes 60% (and sometimes well over) of oil, water, food, energy and every other valuable resource that ALL humans need. We use it all up, and only leave crumbs behind for the other 80% of humans.
xx13moons 2 years ago
I see poverty as a social problem - our government and economic system playing a huge role. People are lacking because of mental illness in homeless people > not getting jobs > remaining homeless because lack of enough social programs. Capitalism sucking jobs dry > exploiting humans > no jobs > no food.
antiquelens 2 years ago
Capitalism is exactly that which provides jobs and opportunities for those who would otherwise live in poverty. Didn't you know that. These people were living in straw huts and eating mud until a McDonald's and a Wal-Mart went up in their area, giving them wonderful jobs!
xx13moons 2 years ago
ha!! at first i thought you were serious, i was like SAY WHAAAAT
antiquelens 2 years ago
lol nah, never. That's usually the type of propaganda I hear from people though, sadly.
xx13moons 2 years ago
That's my bad impression of a patriotic American by the way :) Sarcasm. Hehe.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Hm, since you bring up meat: I rarely buy it because it's quite expensive, organic or not (although I only buy organic). I don't think anyone deprives people of meat anyway. I think people have choices, admittedly proportional to their income. But many lower income people still have choices. Some opt for designer clothes, tech gadgets, make-up & hair salon treatments (I work with many that match this description). Others opt for environmentally & physically healthy choices.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
Also, I don't understand the car issue. Cars are hugely expensive to buy & maintain, with insurance and all.
Poor people having cars? An oxymoron? Or on credit?
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
Oh and I just checked my mail and saw the link to your video; I'll check it out as soon as I get back. Thanks :)
xx13moons 2 years ago
Going to call it a night; it's 2:50 am where I am!
Happy shopping! (ha-hahah!)
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
Oh no, i didn't mean poor people in cars, i meant not having a car is not plausible for a lot of people who need to drive a lot etc...it's a pain taking transit allover for groceries etc, a real pain literally your back hurts ha
antiquelens 2 years ago
Hi antique. I think that both sides are making good points, and you know I pull no punches when it comes to poverty; this is how I see it: both the poverty in the world and the current damage to the environment basically comes down to the way in which the capitalist markets. Essentially, we are told we have a 'choice' to change things such as the environment, 3rd world poverty, homelessness, etc. through boycotting, giving to charitiies, buying 'green' products, etc.- but for many (cont'd)....
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
*way in which capitalist markets function
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
... that isn't a real choice (like you say), and so they won't do it. So what we need to do is get rid of this stupid 'you as an individual can change the world through spending your money in a different way' mentality, and instead recognise as a society that this sort of consumerism simply cannot be sustained, that we need to both build a more fair & redistributive, AND more sustainable society in order to benefit everyone. This society simply cannot be capitalist.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
Yes, not having a car isn't always more convenient. But I argued that we rely on too much convenience, which got us into our environmental mess.
I've never had a car or a driver since I moved out from home/emigrated at 19/20. I carry or bike everything i buy home. Yeah, a bit of a pain sometimes, but that's not the point.
I'm tempted to draw some comparisons to porn but won't go there right now.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
cont:
Isn't plausible for people living under the poverty line, nor would they care. This is my stance as well on not eating meat. If a starving child wanted food, and i had a chicken, i'd give it to that child to slaughter and eat with his family. I think with extreme environmentalism and animal rights, we forget about human rights and the little guy - I mean al gore is a huge, powerful man who can control what is given out to the world CONT.
antiquelens 2 years ago
I was just waiting for the infamous word "extreme".
It implies a certain standard, polarity.
I use this word very rarely as it is so loaded and, at least in this case, has a very negative annotation.
I don't base my views on Al Gore's film, it was only 1 well-known example. I regret having brought it up. There are countless other sources, obviously.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
Yea, a lot of negative publicity is directed towards Gore. And many people falsely assume that Gore is like the Pope of the environmental movement. Not true at all. In fact, I find Gore to be hardly worth mentioning. Which is why I never bring his name up in conversations like this, unless someone else mentions him. I do think that Gore is trying to "capitalize" off of the green-movement, and that his motives may be somewhat questionable. But one persons greed does not discredit science.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Exactly, wouldn't that be similar to people bashing Shelley Lubben because she has a Christian agenda? No different to me. As long as his facts are correct, Al Gore can make more movies for the rest of his life as far as I'm concerned.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
To CPC: I agree with you about Al Gore. As long as his facts are correct and can be backed up I hope that he continues to spread the word. I'm not thrilled with his personal lifestyle choices which don't support what he's preaching, (i.e. quadrupling his impact on the earth by having 4 children), but that shouldn't stop people from being open to truly looking at the damage that is being done to planet Earth from over consuming, over polluting and over populating. The facts are what matter.
AntiPornographyBlog 2 years ago
Just to clear my views up - i respect everyone's view here, i think you are all intelligent people with great points and i respect your lifestyles. I just think, the going green thing is really taking away light from issues like poverty etc. I am sorry but go tell a homeless man on the street to give a shit about the earth, he won't he wants to eat. To me, the green, al gore stuff is a product of our privileged culture, i am not saying we shouldn't care, but "go buy a hybrid" "stop doing this"
antiquelens 2 years ago
I agree, green culture CAN be very elitist, but not in EVERY aspect.
I am not going to tell a homeless man to go green.
Most of us are not homeless men.
Most of us have many options every day. Most of us spent lots of $ on things we could do without. Most of us could do more to lessen our ecol. footprint daily.
Having less is not about being rich. I am not rich (just above poverty income line), although I do count my privileges.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
I realize we're not homeless, i just think we should try to look through the eyes of the poor more often then we do. I own hardly anything new, and that's not for environmental reasons, it's for reasons that i am simply not materialistic. I just think the whole environmental blow out is very influenced by the media and the shock value from it. Also, politicians know they can use it, so they do. I know this sounds lame of me, but i can't help but challenge this idea of eco-footprints and al gore
antiquelens 2 years ago
To me, these issues are important, they are just not as important as human beings. I'm sorry you are bothered so much by this, but this is how i feel.
antiquelens 2 years ago
Again I agree. I don't see these issues as separated by a hierarchy of importance from which the individual must choose. I think there's good reason to believe that they're directly related. To me, environmentalism IS human rights issue; since all humans depend upon the environment for their survival.
xx13moons 2 years ago
It doesn't "bother me so much" that it's you, but I'm addressing you because I wanted to know where you're coming from (knowing your take on porn). I simply wanted to hear your reasons because I couldn't explain them to myself.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
Oh Okay, Well, i am glad you are not bothered :)
antiquelens 2 years ago
Hmm.... the thing is (as far as I see it), environmentalism ties directly in to social issues. The fact that there is so little good soil left in the earth means that agricultural food is lacking, and many people starve as a result. Water is being depleted. Ecosystems are being destroyed and this effects the food chain; species eat other species, obviously. And humans rely on all species for food. Poverty is directly related to overpopulation. But I'm not here to badger, too each their own.
xx13moons 2 years ago
See to me, it's only a social issue to those of us who can actually bring environmentalism into our lives. I just mean, that, i don't think homeless people, poor people etc are caring about the environment, because their basic needs are not met, i think the environment is just overshadowing other problems, politicians are spending so much money on it and completley forgetting about people.
antiquelens 2 years ago
I know this is a very marxist view, but i can't help but see this through the eyes of the poor. I am not to badger either, since I respect you very much and you are very intelligent, and kind.
antiquelens 2 years ago
I totally agree. I just happen to think that promoting sustainable ways of living and consumption is one of the best ways to address the problem of poverty. I think that's what many people miss. It's not like "choose a cause; either social or environmental issues." I see them as directly related to one another; meaning that BY addressing environmental problems, we might be able to solve the many other issues that are a result of our over-consumption: poverty, etc. But perhaps I am wrong.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Well-put, xx13, your points on poverty & social justice.
Not to forget colonialism, racism & ecological exploitation. A classic trio. (Really, put sexism in there, too.)
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
I totally agree with you (xx13) on overpopulation being an issue not just in 'those other' [not quoting you] countries.
I wanted to add to my previous comment:
For half my life I've been trying to grasp why so many people don't relate to the state of the earth. I've often wondered if Germany Hitler opponents felt similar at the dawn of his era, when it was unpopular (not yet criminal) to voice your concerns about the insane pop culture emerging. Decades later it's easy to agree on...
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
...the evils of Hitler Germany. But what atrocities are we committing TODAY in the name of pleasure, convenience & profits? When raising awareness about 'ecocide', eyebrows get raised & one is likely labeled 'too serious', negative, or weirdo. Maybe I've learned too much about what's going on worldwide to be ignorant. It's not pleasant. It's very painful & depressing. But I'd rather know than be ignorant. I don't know how people can live this way, esp. as parents.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
Yes, people don't like cynicism and pessimism. Positive Psychology and wishful thinking is very popular in America these days: "I know that everything may LOOK a mess; but it's all really okay! Just close your eyes and think positive." Like Dorthy, wishing her way back to Kansas. You said, "I would rather know than be ignorant." Many wouldn't - ignorance IS bliss for so many, it seems. See no evil, hear no evil.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Ugh, i hate the new age "positive thinking" garbage in America, people need to open their eyes, and look at all the hungry, homeless, poor people that are living with nothing, let alone "green bags" and solar panels.
antiquelens 2 years ago
AL, I agree if you mean things like "The Secret".
I had a course at school "Psychology of Disease". Our teacher was totally into this film; we were tested on this crap! I asked her if she thinks that 80% of the world chooses to live in abject poverty, or if a woman chooses to get raped (if she did); reply 'yes'.
I do, however, think that we're responsible for much of our lives & need positivity to fire our drive to improve our lives. Where our total resp. begins & ends is beyond anyone.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
That is exactly what I meant actually, "the secret," but I was afraid of using that as a specific example in case anyone was a fan, lol!
xx13moons 2 years ago
The secret?
*shoots self in face*
antiquelens 2 years ago
I agree, we should be more positive, some people maybe less so, me definitely more so.
I do mean things like the secret, it's so ridiculous.
antiquelens 2 years ago
xx13moons, I really appreciate the positive approach actually! That's the irony, as cheesy as it may sound; I see so much beauty in the world (can be in the built environment, too) that it hurts me when it gets destroyed. Its as if a person gets hurt. I don't distinguish.
'Environmentalism' is not all about being cynical/pessimistic. Contrary, it's about awakening to the beauty of life on this planet. Honoring what we've been given.
PS: I'm not & never was a Christian.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
I agree that it's not about cynicism or pessimism. It's about preserving beauty and life. But many people who are not environmentalists SEE it as being cynical. Because before we are able to change our situation, we must first realize how BAD it really is. You can't get rid of a problem without first acknowledging that it exists.
xx13moons 2 years ago
I guess i just find it hard to see the world that positively. There's too much pain everywhere.
antiquelens 2 years ago
I don't understand why you have such low ratings :(
antiquelens 2 years ago
It seems that, similar to porn, the way we view & treat our envt is based on culture & some often hard to identify personal factors - my family always considered me odd for caring abt the envt, so I didn't get it from them.
However, in Germany, where I grew up, env. issues are constantly in the news and on politicians agenda. Not that there's not controversy around many of them, but still. Also, the difference of env. action in Germany & North Am. is HUGE. Blows my mind every time I visit.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
I should add: "giving a damn" is admittedly a big & vague statement. What I mean is that I almost everyone I meet tells me I take the environment "too seriously", when really what I'm doing still seems little to what I COULD do. Many "eco actions" are so much easier than people may think. E.g. not using a laundry dryer, or composting, or not owning a car, or washable menstrual pads (yes indeed), or cutting down on waste, or consuming less, or making more things yourself....this list is endless.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
xx13moons, you are AWESOME! Thanks for speaking out on this ever so unpopular topic, environment. I've been a so-called environmentalist from my mid-teens, and ever since, I can count the number of people I met who give a damn about the environment on 1 hand. Before starting my B. of Env.Studies, I was excited to meet so many like-minded people. But even in my program most seemed to be there for a job only. Even more so later during my MES.
Thanks again for caring enough to risk your popularity.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
Hi! Thanks for your support again. I'm also glad to meet someone else who cares about this issue. And I see that you've even studied it in college? That's awesome. I'd really like to go back to college to study Ecology. I don't have any formal training in this area; I guess I just read a lot. Speaking of that, have you read "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann? One of my favorite books on environmentalism.
xx13moons 2 years ago
I haven't read "The last Hours..", I will look into it! Thanks!
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
As a lifelong committed environmentalist I agree with you 100%! :-) So I thank you for making this video & for speaking out about this important issue. You made many excellent points, & posed many pertinent questions for those who don't think environmentalism is important. Good luck to them in coming up with any rational response!
And may I just say that the ending of this video with your adorable kitten was the best surprise ending that I've ever seen here on YouTube. TOTALLY ADORABLE! :-)
AntiPornographyBlog 2 years ago
APB!!!!!!
Will you marry me!?!?!!? :-))
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
CPC wrote: "APB!!!!!! Will you marry me!?!?!!? :-))"
-
LOL!!!! :-) I almost hurt myself laughing so loud at that. ;-) But now that I've read your comment to xx13moons, I can kind of understand your "proposal." ;-) It is SO disturbing that so many of your peers have abandoned their true environmentalism. Wow. Scary. :-(
Anyway, sure I'll marry you if you're OK with a long-distance "Internet marriage." ;-) We could have the ceremony here in the comments section & xx13moons could officiate! ;-)
AntiPornographyBlog 2 years ago
HAHAHAH!!! I have tears in my eyes (there could be many reasons for that)!
The last part! xx13moons, what do you say!?!?! HELLO, ARE YOU THERE!?!
Who would have expected THIS on your vid on environmentalism? And so quick, it was love @ first sight! I wish i could upload a quick vid with a church photo & an organ playing (actually I could, I have organ loops on Garageband)...LOOOOLLLL!
APB, I hope he won't kick us out now. Too much fun :-[]
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
Hello, thanks for your support on this. Like you said in another comment, you can't expect that, people who agree with you on one issue (porn) will agree with you on everything else. So I wasn't too sure about making this video, thinking that I didn't want to offend the few supports that I have already. But I'm glad to see these comments; even those who disagree with my position have been very respectful. BTW, I went to Borders earlier today and picked up "Pornified," great book so far!
xx13moons 2 years ago
Not sure if you meant that I "can't expect others to agree with me on everything".
I don't. I just don't understand how s.o. can be so insightful about the correlations among porn and its subtopics, yet not be as aware about a much more fundamental issue. We depend on this planet in every way. *Technically* more than the sexes depend on each other. But I don't believe in making a distinction here, hence my surprise.
We could learn a lot from Aboriginal traditions....
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
IMO ,selling human beings doesn't really correlate with a theory presented by a politician that caused a nation to freak out and "go green" not to mention half the shit like "go green tshirts" and bags are probably made by starving children in sweat shops..., I agree we depend on the planet...but i also think we could be going through something natural, and i'd rather spend my resources helping humans than saving trees and not eating meat, that's all.
antiquelens 2 years ago
..but, that's exactly the thing here.... saving trees and (though I'm not a vegetarian) not eating meat DOES help humans. It's all intertwined. Trees = ecosystems = plentiful species = food for humans. And meat consumption (the way we eat it in the west) vastly contributes to water pollution and using millions of tons of grain/plant-food to feed animals. (the amount of plant-food that is used for ONE cow, for example; could otherwise feed about a dozen people.) But no, we need that for fast-food
xx13moons 2 years ago
But I'm not the type to be all, "agree with me or die." So I digress and I will leave it at that. You're not one of those evil-capitalist bastards; and you're obviously very conscious about a plethora of very important issues; so who am I to complain or judge. It's all good, heh.
xx13moons 2 years ago
I think this is the only place we disagree
Good video though!
antiquelens 2 years ago
To antiquelens: I respect your right to have your own opinion on this issue and to state it in any way you like, but I personally would find it extremely helpful if you would be willing to elaborate on what it is you disagree with in this video and why. Also, many questions are posed in this video, and I was wondering if you would be willing to respond to any of them. I would be curious to know what your position is. Thanks in advance if you're willing to take the time to do this. :-)
AntiPornographyBlog 2 years ago
Well, mostly that i don't buy into the whole global warming thing - I think we do contirbute to our polluted earth, but i think the warming could possibly be a natural happening. I guess, i just didn't want to jump on the green boat - i mean, obviously i care about the environment, but i've never been one to be passionate about it, i am definitely a skeptic. that's all.
antiquelens 2 years ago
Whoa, I'm so surprised you say that!
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
I'm sorry if i offended you or anything :(
I guess this is the one thing we're not on the same boat with, i hope it does not affect our friendship.
antiquelens 2 years ago
Antiquelens: Did you watch Al Gore's movie? Or any David Suzuki films? One of David S.'s docs made me decide to go vegan over night (I was a vegan for 6 yrs).
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
I have seen parts of his film.
And, no for David, he was just at my college and i didn't go, i think he is a bit self-righteous.
I don't think i could ever become a vegan, i was a vegetarian for a while in high school, but then went back to meat.
antiquelens 2 years ago
I admit, i feel a bit out of sorts in this dialouge, simply because i am worried you two think less of me now, and of my work in feminism, you know? Maybe i am just being paranoid as usual :(
antiquelens 2 years ago
Well, I just can't explain to myself why there is a disconnect for many, or you, in this case. To me, the so-called environment is everywhere, we depend on it with every breath. The words of many traditional cultures that everything is connected to everything else ring so true, intellectually, spiritually & emotionally.
You make a lot of connections among the topics of porn, violence, society, gender, etc. I don't know why something as fundamental as the envt. would have lower priority.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but I'm responding anyway. I tend to agree that all of these issues are related; especially feminism, women's rights and ecology. Thus Ecofeminism. There are OBVIOUS correlations between women's rights and overpopulation. The more empowered women are in a culture; the more control they have over their own reproductive rights and choices (abortion, birth control, etc..) In traditional monotheistic-patriarchal cultures, women were treated like cattle..
xx13moons 2 years ago
They were expected to do nothing more than pump out a child every nine months (and this is still the case in many third-world Islamic nations.) In early western culture, it was the same way; but then Women's rights came along; women were given more rights over their own bodies; and they began having less and less children, as it was now there choice entirely. This is why the population is exploding in Islamic countries, while here in the west it is static;
xx13moons 2 years ago
now, you might think, "okay, so?" I tend to think that overpopulation is directly tied to many social and environmental problems (starvation and the spread of disease especially.) The population has exploded over the last century from 2 billion to nearly 7 billion people; having huge consequences on our planet. The way I see it: women's rights = healthier environment, merely because the population slows down and this is always a good thing in a world where 30 million starve each year.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Sorry for all the comments; perhaps I will consider making a video later on addressing the topic of ecofeminism; it is very interesting. But thank you for your comments and support :)
xx13moons 2 years ago
Dear antiquelens: No need to be worried about me thinking less of your feminist work. I have no unrealistic expectations about agreeing with everyone who is against porn, etc., on every other issue. It would be nice, but I'm not going to be upset if it's not the case. ;-) In the same way that I support Shelley Lubben's pro-woman anti-porn activism even though she's a Christian & that's not relatable to me, I'll continue to support you enthusiastically even if you're not an environmentalist. :-)
AntiPornographyBlog 2 years ago
Yeah - that's how i am with Shelley too,I look beyond her religious beliefs, that i don't share, and realize she's an amazing person and woman despite our different views on life, you know?
antiquelens 2 years ago
Antiquelens, I feel that the 'environment' is common ground for all, despite our spiritual beliefs. At the very least, we can agree to treat our planet respectfully with a view to a high quality of life for current & future generations. I can look beyond someone's religion (although it usually ties into values + actions), but it's hard for me to look beyond someone's actions that harm the world we live in, esp. in light of the vast information available about our ecological dilemma.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
I don't want to sound condescending in this comment, so please don't that it that way. When it comes to environmentalism, I really think it's a matter of becoming conscious of the information that is out there. There's a lot to take in. I agree, some of the more mainstream voices on the issue, like Al Gore, are guilty of doom-saying; and this alarmist approach causes many to embrace skepticism. On the other hand, the pure, raw scientific data (the kind that most people aren't familiar with)...
xx13moons 2 years ago
I'm trying to take a step back, I don't understand:
I feel like I'm in a discussion about porn.
Yes, "scientific data" is useful to convince people. But why is it necessary? Which part of ecological destruction, ecosystem exploitation, overconsumption & any enviro disaster out there don't people understand? Have they been sleeping for the last few centuries, or since they were born? Too much YT?!? I can't stay unemotional. It enrages me, totally blows my mind.
chocolatepoundcake 2 years ago
No I agree. I think it's just one of those issues where it benefits people (so they imagine) to be complacent and apathetic; they don't WANT to think about it, because if it is true, the implications for our way of living and seeing the world are profound. It's one of those issues that seems to be "larger than life," some people find it hard to understand how us puny humans could have such a potentially devastating effect on something as massive as the planet.
xx13moons 2 years ago
seems to point to a rather obvious conclusion; we're messing up the ecosystem, big-time. Obviously, I don't expect you to take my words at face-value; but if you are ever interested in learning more about the issue (and if it ain't your thing, that's fine, we all have our own battles,) I could point you to some wonderful book titles or documentaries. One that comes to mind right away is "Home," a wonderful free-documentary that you can find in full-form here on youtube;
xx13moons 2 years ago
(cont.) I think "Home" is in my favorites. It's not so much a rant on global warming as it is a simple history of the Earth, human civilization and how the two impact one-another. The imagery is spectacular and it received quite good reviews. Geology, Biology, Oil, Agriculture are all discussed; in a matter-of-fact kind of way. Check it out if you're interested; if not, that's cool too, heh :)
xx13moons 2 years ago
I know my opinion on enviormentalism will get me killed on here, but that's okay. I understand the whole idea behind it, maybe i'm too cynical to notice, who knows. I just really did not like Al Gore's propaganda film - I'll keep looking around, until then, i'm stickin' to human rights issues.
But yeah to ferechi, apparently the world is ending anyway :-P I have a family member who is warning me constantly, it's ridiculous.
antiquelens 2 years ago
What do you to have say now that new information indicates that for over a decade, climate scientists around the world have conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change?
Silveracity 2 years ago
What I have to say about that is, not to sound sarcastic or arrogant, but it's completely irrelevant to the point of my video - in which in intentionally ignore the subject of climate change and address the numerous OTHER environmental problems such as Oil, water/food shortages, the depletion of soil, and so on...
xx13moons 2 years ago
Also, I'd be happy to see this "new information that indicates that for over a decade, climate scientists... have conspired to overstate the case....etc.." What are your sources exactly? Alex Jones? Glenn Beck (forgive me if my assumptions are wrong.) But every single scientific peer-reviewed article I've read has overwhelmingly pointed to the "man-made global warming" hypothesis. (Also, "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery)
xx13moons 2 years ago
Good video, 5 stars
Well I guess the fundie Christians will say that the invironment is not so important because the end times is near.
They need conspiracies (Illuminati, New World Order, environment theories, HAARP, chmtrails ext ext) to claim that their farytale Bible is correct (Book of revelations).
Fundies dont have much responcabilities. because they have their fanasy God.
Bye from Germany
ferechi
ferechi 2 years ago
Yea good point. Why care about the planet when Jesus will be coming back to fix our mistakes? It's sad that so many people hold such a destructive worldview. What's worse is that they'll be long dead when their grandchildren are in need of an explanation as to why their ancestors left them with a dying and depleted planet. And most of the conspiracy theorists are just as bad. Thanks for watching, rating and commenting.
xx13moons 2 years ago