Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Earth Day

Today is Earth Day. Woo-hoo! A band called “Cheap Trick” are playing the National Mall in DC. I wonder if their electricity comes from Windy Miller. I seriously fucking doubt it. Cunts. Utter cunts.

We have the concept of crimes against humanity. Green is one. they should all be cast into the same oubliette as NAZIs and Commies. Actually, I think they are worse. The NAZIs and Commies at least had some form of positive vision for the future (whether Aryan Supermen planting the Flag of the Reich on Mars or a sort of Star Trek: Next Generation total wealth scenario) and a belief in economic and technological progress (although Hitler of course had some rather romantic Green notions himself although that didn’t stop the Luftwaffe developing jet engines which are of course for True “no flying pact” Greens anathema). Oh, and snazzier uniforms. Well, the Nazis had anyway.

It is the most evil ideology I know of and the most dangerous because almost everyone sees it as so “nice”. Even most critics conceive of it as misguided in a fluffy way. It isn’t nice, it is intrinsically anti-human, dismal and vile and it is very hard-edged.

Yet still it is indulged by the mainstream politicians and media. You just wait until the lights start going out because we can’t get base-load from fission and coal. You just wait Porritt because it will be me in the dark alley near your house with the tyre iron. Well, it won’t be much use for a car then will it?

81 Comments

  1. RAB says:

    With you all the way Thornavis, I was going to mention E coli and malaria earlier. And the spurious idea that there is any such a thing as natural nature, even before Homo Sapiens turned up. The natural world is a hierarchical one, even brambles will colonise and kill other plants in their genetically driven desire for self survival.

    Well it has been hard work dealing with the hard of understanding authoritarian Collective types of this world, like you Mark, but there’s the dinner to get together and Homeland coming up a 9 oclock, so I will leave you with a little joke that makes a point. You obviously don’t get Libertarianism, but surely you get jokes, don’t you? ;-)

    The Vicar was doing his rounds of the village after Sunday morning service, when he came up to Mr Jones working in his garden.

    “My word Mr Jones, isn’t your garden looking fine! The roses blooming, the plump runner beans all in a row, the cabbages and the caulifowers coming on a treat, the lawn mowed and trimmed. God has been gracious in his bounty to you, and no mistake!”

    And Mr Jones replied…

    Well I’m not so sure of that Vicar. I’m grateful for the rain and the sunshine certainly, but you should have seen the state of this place when God had it all to himself!

  2. zack says:

    mark: At the moment, it is incredibly disingenuous to suggest that our decisions do not cause harm to others when the entire basis of a “market society” is that the decisions of others determine who should be able to live
    ————————————————–
    What did you mean by this? Is that a reference to China’s one child policy? Or the recent ruling that Britain’s NHS should be able to deny service to certain people whom the administrators think aren’t worth saving? Because those aren’t libertarian policies – infact they’re the opposite of libertarian (or conservative) policies. Those are policies of statists.

    If however, you mean that the mean corporations or evil capitalists are out to kill people because they’re evil, well, you’re delusional.
    ——————————-
    mark:Most people comcerend about the environment simply want us to recognise that the environment/ animal species are important
    ——————————-
    Except they’re not. You seem to be arguing that animals or the environment have intrinsic value, which is completely wrong headed. Ideas like ‘important’ and ‘value’ are human concepts and thus subjective. In my local grocery, a 1lb of cheddar is worth about $7; on an island made of gold, it would be the most valuable thing there.

    Things have no value except what we give them, and that changes. A poor farmer in Africa hates wild elephants because of the threat the herd poses to his crop. In America, where elephants are rare and pose no threats to our crops, they are invaluable. It’s the modern societies that place value on nature and animals because we can afford to – we are rich enough that the pleasure we get out of seeing it outweighs its threats. In poor countries, they don’t have that luxury; nature has no value, it is risk.

    Thus, it shouldn’t be suprising to learn that it is the rich countries that have the cleaner air, cleaner water, increasing forest acreage, etc. It is the rich countries were nature is doing best – the poor ones where it is doing worse (though still not as bad as the green movement would have us believe; read The Sceptical Environmentalist when you get the chance).

    If the greens really wanted to improve the environment, they would encourage policies that make the poor countries rich so that they could afford to enjoy nature like we do; they would encourage free trade and capitalism; encourage GM foods, fertilizers and other developments that increase production per acre, decrease the number of people that have to work on farms, etc. But they don’t, do they? No, they demand that we give take policies that would, in effect, make us poorer, make our societies regress.

    If that isn’t anti human, then what is?

  3. Thornavis says:

    RAB
    Brambles, don’t talk to me about brambles, the bloody things colonise my garden like, well like weeds I suppose, Glyphosphate is your friend ! Then again they are OK in context insects love them and I’m very partial to blackberry and apple pie, the apples are from my own tree and the blackberries from a bramble I’ve let live and thrive, the perfect example of a libertarian garden in action, even mark would approve I’m sure.

  4. Felix The Cat of Zanzibar says:

    Is this a sock puppet propaghanda campaign the government is running? Seems like a bunch of propaghanda. Hi bob from the CIA, hope the coffee at the pentagon is nice and warm.

  5. Tim Newman says:

    And fair enough, I completely agree that new beneficial technologies will be developed…

    Yup. Hydraulic fracking, for example.

  6. Felix The Cat of Zanzibar says:

    Be aware of the sock puppets.

  7. Henry Crun says:

    mark, you mistake my flippancy for interest in anything you have to say – sadly you are mistaken. You come across like those worthless fuckwits that work in marketing or human resources. Please kill yourself – you won’t be missed.

    Zack you have hit the nail fairly and squarely right on the head. The Greens/Environmentalists don’t want to improve the lot of the thrid world or improve the environment – not really. You see, if that were to happen then they wouldn’t get to swan around the globe on big boats disrupting the Japanese fishing industry. Or spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on heart rending adverts showing pandas or some other endangered species (tigers or polar bears) begging that we each send them £3 a month. It’s just like a massive ponzi scheme with WWF as the only beneficiary.

    I speak as an avid wildlife photographer and have come in contact with conservationists and so called eco warrior/enviro loons. And I can quite safely say that envrionmentalist are definitely not conservationists – they are just another bunch of worthless rent-seeking fucktards vehemently protecting their own “industry”. mark strikes me as being of the latter category – all piss and wind. Doesn’t really give a rat’s arse about saving panda’s – that’s someone else’s job but as long as he is “raising awareness” it satisifes some deep seated self-importance. Most of them couldn’t tell the difference between a rhinoceros and a volkswagen beetle.

    @NickM – with you on the jet engine thing. I once had the pleasure of disembarking a C130 whilst a flight of Mirages were taking off with afterburners on full. A-fucking-mazing sight. And the noise!! Haven’t heard music like it since.

  8. RAB says:

    You lucky man Thornavis, having a garden with edible stuff growing in it. Ours here in Bristol is postage stamp sized, mainly lawn and a couple of flower beds.

    The house I was born in, in Caerphilly though, had a huge garden about 200 yds long that went down in tiers. The very bottom part had been a tennis court, but the previous owners had “Dug for Victory”, so we had every vegetable able to be grown in Britain growing there. Potatoes onions all the beans and peas, cabbage cauliflowers the lot. And in addition fruit… blackcurrants redcurrants whitecurrants even, plus gooseberries raspberries strawberries and yup the bramble blackberries. Apple and pear trees too, and a couple of hazel nut ones and a cherry tree. It was my garden of eden, I thought I was in paradise! I spent my first eight years just playing and grazing there. I only used to go back into the house to sleep or if it was pissing down.

    Thing is, paradise was bloody hard work for my Gramp and dad who did all the digging and planting, it doesn’t take care of itself. We even used to get a truckload of manure off of one of our farmer relations once a year and dug it in. The whole neighbourhood used to keep their windows closed till it was all done. Damn I wish I had a garden like that now!

  9. Felix The Cat of Zanzibar says:

    Sockpuppets.

  10. Sam Duncan says:

    “Nothing wrong” with Earth Day? I won’t object to you having it, but I wouldn’t say that.

    There’s a difference between a bunch of superannuated hippies setting up a commune at the end of the road and North Korea, right? It’s one of degree, one of scale, and – in particular – one of coercion. I’ve absolutely no problem at all with the former. I think it’s mad, but if I were to go around getting all offended about things I think are mad, and saying there ought to be a law, I’d have no time for anything else. And I’d be an arse.

    Similarly, there’s a huge difference between volunteering to help Chinese dumb chums get jiggy with each other and a global, tax-aided, anti-growth, wankfest.

    Right now, I look on Earth Day with {a|be}musement. But, as we say in Jockland, it’s worth the watching.

    Anyway, je m’ennuie de cela. 60? I’ve been lurking here for years and I didn’t even know CCIZ did that “<- Older Comments” thing…

  11. mark says:

    Henry,
    Shame on you and shame on the rest of you for failing to criticise such vile comments.

    Thornavis, RAB

    There are some circumstances in which a person defending themselves might be justified in killing another person. This doesn’t mean that we are free to kill whoever we like. As for humans, so for animals. Isn’t this obvious? I think we’ve reached a stage of development where we should consider the impact of our actions on the environment and that further increases in consumption are likely to be less worthwhile than protecting the natural world.

    Zack –
    What I mean to say is that the market mechanism won’t neccesarily produce compassionate behaviour, that we sometimes do have to restrict the choices of others and that the choices we make often do have an effect on others. I don’t doubt that most libertarians are good people, but they are deluded. The fact that people organise themselves into groups and do terrible things to each other isn’t changed by the introduction of money. It can only be changed by altering our moral standards – the means of organisation is less important than the things we wish to do. And people can have mistaken ideas about what the right thing to do is – I don’t know if there are universal values (I suspect there might be), but even if there aren’t it doesn’t follow that people can’t be wrong.
    I’m not sure that capitalism and free trade alone will solve Africas problems.

    Sam, maybe we should have less “growth”. As the Japanese say, フランス語知らねーもん…

  12. CountingCats says:

    Henry,

    Watch it. Don’t assume you can say that twice.

    We very seldom call people out here, but that deserves it. While you are on someone else’s property treat all present with a modicum of courtesy.

  13. CountingCats says:

    Look, I can’t be bothered reading all this, it is just plain too long at this point, but what is this weird dichotomy being built here?

    The idea that conservation and liberty are in some sort of conflict is nonsense.

    Me? Do I care if pandas go extinct? Too bleedin right I do. If 99% of all species are extinct, so what? It is no argument for being callous towards existing ones. I LIKE variety in the natural world, and that variety is an insurance policy.

    If 99% of all people who ever lived are now dead, would that mean we should be indifferent to current deaths? That numbers argument isn’t libertarian, it is just callous.

    Conservation of species is in no way incompatible with free markets. If it it perceived otherwise, it is only because there is so much government interference right now that the market can’t operate.

    Sorry, but Mark has valid arguments, and in the main I support his aims, even if not his social paradigm.

  14. CountingCats says:

    I’m not sure that capitalism and free trade alone will solve Africas problems.

    No, but given that most of their problems are caused by the lack of these things they would be a mighty great help.

    Bear in mind that rule of law, integrity of contracts, limited regulation and secure property rights are necessary prerequisites to effective free markets. So, if we had free markets we would also have a whole load of other things which would make life so much better for all there.

  15. RAB says:

    Oh gawd Cats, you have entirely missed the points…

    If 99% of all species are extinct, so what? It is no argument for being callous towards existing ones. I LIKE variety in the natural world, and that variety is an insurance policy.

    And the point is that WE, human beings did not make them extinct, they, and Gaia managed it all on their own!

    None of us are being callous towards existing ones. We actively try to save them. Before Humans NOTHING saved them except their own ability to survive and adapt. If they couldn’t, Hasta La Vista baby!

    I love the natural world, spent a week walking in the wilds of West Wales with the bonkers dog only two weeks ago, but taking sides with a climate hysteric is going a bit far Cats.

    But it’s very late and I need a bit of kip, let’s see what else has been shaken down from the tree when I rise again tomorrow.

  16. zack says:

    mark:What I mean to say is that the market mechanism won’t neccesarily produce compassionate behaviour, that we sometimes do have to restrict the choices of others and that the choices we make often do have an effect on others.
    ————————————-

    well, no one here is arguing that we should be able to do whatever we want with total disregard for others; the general principal of ‘your right to swing your arm ends were my nose begins’ is fairly common withing anti-statist circles.

    ————————————-
    mark: The fact that people organise themselves into groups and do terrible things to each other isn’t changed by the introduction of money. It can only be changed by altering our moral standards – the means of organisation is less important than the things we wish to do.
    ————————————

    Morality is important, I (and I think everyone on this board) agree with this; no one is arguing that moral theory is unimportant or should be disregarded. I honestly don’t know where you’re getting the idea that libertarians/conservatives/anti-statists think that (giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is not, infact, a strawman arguement). Infact, it is our very moral beliefs that bring us to support the market.

    A quick summery would be: Dictatorships are inherently evil because they deny the innate dignity and rights of human beings; they, by their very nature, state that people can’t be trusted to run their own lives, and that the leader(s) have more rights/wisdom or is just generally better then their subjects. We also believe that because of humanities tendency to be really nasty/brutal to others, no one should have that right. Therefore, the system that best respects/secures humanities basic rights is limited government combined with a free enterprise system.

    Now, to more fully explain that would take much more room then we have here, and frankly, more time then I have for a long while. I suggest you read some of the material that has been mentioned here, or if you’re really pressed for time, check out some of these video’s by Bill Whittle – they should act as a decent primer on some of these issues.

    http://billwhittle.net/?page_id=59 ; I especially recommend “constrained vs. unconstrained” and the entirety of the “what we believe” series (granted these come from an American Conservative perspective, but I still think they are principals which many libertarians can agree with.

    In summery; the reason many here dislike the green movement is that we that their policies would be disasterously counterproductive. Their policies are not calls for individual actions, but for massive new bureaucracies with very few limits on their power or scope; they of course would control these new tremendously powerful administrations. They also state flat out that they would like to use these new powers to reduce the very goods/systems that make modern life possible (like cars, modern agriculture, or most of our means of energy production) – which we also view as bad. And to top it off, many in the green movement think that humanity is a cancer on the earth that needs to be eliminated – and others in the green movement have notably not distanced themselves from these extremists, a fact which we think casts the motivations for the whole movement into doubt.

    Sorry for the long post, but I hope that I’ve at least cleared up alot of your issues.

  17. Henry Crun says:

    Cats, your house, your rules, I shall abide by them.

    mark, were you offended? Diddumd. I’m sure you’re a big boy now and will get over it.

  18. NickM says:

    I honestly didn’t expect this amount of agro. Well, not in this way. I thought my idea of doing something reprehensible to Porritt’s scrote bag in a dark alley. His dark alley I shall leave alone.

  19. NickM says:

    Look. It is like this. I am a warden of a Quaker Meeting House. This means I get to live rent-free in a very nice gaff. It also means I have to clean the toilets and look after our fairly extensive grounds. Between me and my wife that means 10 hour work a week between the two of us. i have worked more than ten hours in the day but generally we come well under that. Don’t tell them! Parts of that garden are striped lawns (work) and parts are “wilderness” (no work). I have cleared-out the stream of dead stuff and that was emotional I can tells ya. It was also fun. Please don’t tell them I would have done that for free. I get to have fires the likes of which… My point is nature doesn’t exist in a meaningful way in England. This here garden is sort of natural but bugger me it takes work to make it so. Every year my little village has an “open gardens day” and folks love this place. Some of them think it very Green. They haven’t seen me having a fire with the detritus. I love it. I also love Manchester just up the road. Green pisses me off (to put it very mildly) in that it says humans are vile full-stop. No they are not. I tend this garden and I also love the big city too but I tend it. OK I do the heavy lifting and killing and my wife tends to do the planting but both are needed.

  20. CountingCats says:

    I’ve been lurking here for years and I didn’t even know CCIZ did that “< - Older Comments” thing

    Neither did I.

  21. RAB says:

    Did what? I have scanned the earlier comments and can’t find that bit.

  22. Thornavis says:

    mark

    To reply specifically to your question to me and RAB at 11.32 am, I don’t know why you think I’m indifferent to the killing of animals in general and the loss of species in particular, I’ve already said that the natural world matters a lot to me and I try and do what little I can to encourage wildlife in my garden, I also belong to a few conservation organisations, ones that try and make a difference rather than get involved in advocacy and hobnobbing with politicians. My own views on the killing of animals are complicated and not really of any interest to anyone except me but briefly summarised they are, don’t kill anything without good reason and always avoid cruelty in so far as one can. I used to keep chickens and hated having to kill them but at least they’d had a good life while alive and I kept them for longer than was strictly economic so they could have a bit more of it. Regarding consumption, I think you are making an error in assuming that consumption equals use of finite resources and that increasing it must have a negative impact on the natural world, it’s a common error unfortunately and the refutation of it would take too long, or it would for me anyway but here’s an example of what I mean. I live in Sussex which, for a while, was England’s premier iron producing area, it was and often still is, a widely believed myth that this led to the destruction of the woodlands for charcoal burning to fuel the furnaces. In fact the woods were intensively coppiced to produce the enormous amount of wood that was needed, far from destroying them the industry encouraged the healthy growth of woods which were alive with birds and animals, now they tend to be overgrown and bird numbers have seriously declined. It was human economic activity that produced this mini eden, Sussex is still, as it always has been, one of the most wooded counties in England but is much less endowed with wildlife.
    Apologies for this rather didactic post but perhaps it gives you an idea of what my actual views are rather than the ones you seem to have imagined from your misreading of libertarian thought.

  23. Thornavis says:

    RAB
    Your childhood Caerphilly garden sounds exactly the sort that children ( and animals ) love, I’m amazed that anyone manages to grow anything there though. I had relatives in Cardiff when I was a kid and my memories of Caerphilly are that every time we went near the place it was pissing down ! Mind you that was true of most of the places we went to in the vicinity, I really like Wales but I can’t take the rain, it’s bad enough in Shropshire where one of my sisters lives. Give me the sun and drought of the south east.

  24. RAB says:

    Ah the legendary Welsh weather!

    As the comedian Rhod Gilbert once said… Weather? don’t talk to me about weather! I’m Welsh madam, I was 8 before I realised you could take a Cagoule OFF.

    Nevertheless, our garden grew wonderfully. I have actually been back there, which is always a huge mistake. Never go back, only forwards.

    We were driving through Caerphilly with my mum a couple of years ago, so she could point out various places of her childhood (she’s 88) like Bedwas and St Martin’s Road. Anyway we stopped outside our old house, Brynhyfred (winter Hill) so I could take a picture. Well the occupants spotted us and came over to the car,… Hello can I help you?

    Well we apologised for making them suspicious, and explained that we used to live there. They invited us in for tea! and knew exactly who we were. My family was what is known as a prominent one in the town, and even though we moved to Cardiff in 1960, the memory still lingers apparently.

    Well mum was well chuffed. The fireplaces that she’d put in, in the 1950′s, were still there, and the chandelier in the dining room. But the whole place was a dissapointment to me. Well it all looks smaller given that my perspective aged 8 was about 4 foot off the ground, but the biggest dissapointment was the garden. Oh it’s still big, but the vegetable garden and the fruit bushes and apple trees etc have all gone, and been re-lawned. Damn shame.

  25. mark says:

    Fair enough, you all seem fairly reasonable – if you don’t think there is anything particuarly anti- human about environmentalism or anything especially human about producing more things, that it is possible for people to improve their environment by focusing on nature, then I agree with you.
    Zack -
    Again, fair enough. On the other hand, I do think there are a lot of internet libertarians who simply hate the word “government” and others who believe that we can organise society by ignoring the fact that society exists.

    Henry -
    Not personally insulted, more worried that you would make such comments without knowing anything of the mental state of the person you were communicating with and shocked that an adult would think it a good idea to do such a thing.

  26. bloke in spain says:

    Jeez
    The Natural World (notice caps)

    Once upon a time there was a beautiful pink & brown planet. Spinning in space & soaking up the sunlight. On on this planet were all these microbe thingies, gobbling up the hydrogen sulphide & singing folk songs. And then, one terrible day, a microbe invented chlorophyll & used the sunlight crack the CO2 for food. And the offspring of this microbe spread across the planet cracking CO2 & shitting corrosive oxygen until they’d completely poisoned the planet & from space all could be seen was the vile blue & green devastation. And the Natural World was no more. (violins)

  27. Thornavis says:

    b i s.

    The natural world is simply a shorthand term for all the non human stuff on the planet, that’s the way I use it anyway, it doesn’t imply any imaginary pristine state that must remain unchanged.

  28. CountingCats says:

    bloke in spain,

    Larry Niven’s ‘The Green Plague‘, right?

  29. bloke in spain says:

    Think a few authors had a go at that one but Niven, certainly.
    Mr T. Then what’s natural? Natural UK would be dense deciduous forest apart from some hill tops shading to conifers in the north. Ditto most of Europe.

  30. Thornavis says:

    b i s
    The question of what’s natural is irrelevant when discussing that part of nature which is not us. As I said it’s just a shorthand term, it’s perfectly possible to use a word and know what it generally means without getting sidetracked into sterile debates about exact meanings, I like the old term Natural History, with its suggestion of amateur scientists and literary observers such as W. H. Hudson. You ask what is natural and then assert that Britain and most of Europe would be dense forest, so you are talking about one brief period in the immediate post glacial era and that conventional view has come into question recently with the work of Frans Vera and studies of the pollen record. This is rather like the rows of a few years back in the classical music world concerning ‘authentic’ historical performance techniques, which has now largely abated, as people have stopped using that particular word and retreated from entrenched positions.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: