Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists

[NewLiberty]

I'm up for nuclear power, but nuclear cars? You've got to be crazy.

Atomic planes are a no-no because appropriate shielding for personnel would weigh too much, same goes to the cars, AND with the rate of annual car accidents - imaging tearing that shielding off and giving nearby people a tan . Medical personnel or police approaching the vehicle should be protected too and so on.

There was a fuss about radioactive batteries for consumer electronics, but it ended nowhere, as we are to far from that technology.

EDIT: yeah, and problem of availability to general public, imagine lots of accidental poisonings, and some grease bombs.

Yeh, i was joking on there, though only kind-a.  Seriously, though, i think nuclear power is the most promising energy source, and even without further development, the accident rate is acceptable.  The reasons you listed were pretty much the reasons those projects were scrapped (both projects were real -- no joke).  On the other hand, i'm sure small-scale reactors could be developed which are safe *enough*.

Fission or thorium might be even better for those purposes, and safer, and cleaner.  The technology is available for decades but who builds them?
The problem with those is that governments don't like them on account of the fact that you can't make nuclear weapons with the byproducts.

[PrintMule]

Everyone bored enough to watch a foreign movie with a possibly poor translation should watch this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_I_Ended_This_Summer

There's a "small form factor reactor (well kinda)" playing a big role in the movie. Funny thing about these "reactors (more like batteries)" is how some people, being a precious metal hunters, tried to take those reactors apart, only to find their death. And that is just a human stupidity. Considering a possible malevolent intent, I'd say there's no safety whatsoever in that regard.

[crumbs]

...
Fission or thorium might be even better for those purposes, and safer, and cleaner.  The technology is available for decades but who builds them?
The problem with those is that governments don't like them on account of the fact that you can't make nuclear weapons with the byproducts.

Fusion or thorium, right?  Fission is how cooking-grade reactors work.  But there's plenty of research on both, and US has enough weapons-grade stuff to depopulate the planet several times over -- no need to encroach on commercial nuke reactors.

Just for weirdness & curiosity factor, you might like this.

[NewLiberty]

...
Fission or thorium might be even better for those purposes, and safer, and cleaner.  The technology is available for decades but who builds them?
The problem with those is that governments don't like them on account of the fact that you can't make nuclear weapons with the byproducts.

Fusion or thorium, right?  Fission is how cooking-grade reactors work.  But there's plenty of research on both, and US has enough weapons-grade stuff to depopulate the planet several times over -- no need to encroach on commercial nuke reactors.

Just for weirdness & curiosity factor, you might like this.

Yes fusion, thank you for correcting that.
And I'd agree, there is more than enough offensive and area-denial weapons at the command of nations, US and otherwise.
Nuclear is really the only "mass destructive" weapon in the arsenal in the sense of destroying mass to create energy...

[inform]

...
Fission or thorium might be even better for those purposes, and safer, and cleaner.  The technology is available for decades but who builds them?
The problem with those is that governments don't like them on account of the fact that you can't make nuclear weapons with the byproducts.

Fusion or thorium, right?  Fission is how cooking-grade reactors work.  But there's plenty of research on both, and US has enough weapons-grade stuff to depopulate the planet several times over -- no need to encroach on commercial nuke reactors.

Just for weirdness & curiosity factor, you might like this.

Yes fusion, thank you for correcting that.
And I'd agree, there is more than enough offensive and area-denial weapons at the command of nations, US and otherwise.
Nuclear is really the only "mass destructive" weapon in the arsenal in the sense of destroying mass to create energy...

i think this illuminati control bain and art fashion
this coz you not be you son or girl

if you be lesbis or homosecsual propoganda parades

be world life only 300 comitete

bilderberg club this masonic
make music industry also and how we grow in our life and how we die

This topic
i make some details about this review

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=313487.0

i kill my 50 minute life for build this review what i know and analize 7 or 8 years
maybe some guys be interest this situation in our planet

[Spendulus]

I say we end women's suffrage and ban dihydrogen monoxide from being put into our water supplies. Bad stuff I say.

Well HELL YAH!

Cuz you know that women suffer with that 'women's suffrage' shit.

Nobody wants people suffering specially women.

And we need to stop putting that dihydrogen monoxide in their drinks too.  They'd be a lot happier then.

[Wilikon]

Every time I hear someone say that feminism is about validating every choice a woman makes I have to fight back vomit.

Do people really think that a stay at home mom is really on equal footing with a woman who works and takes care of herself? There’s no way those two things are the same. It’s hard for me to believe it’s not just verbally placating these people so they don’t get in trouble with the mommy bloggers.

Having kids and getting married are considered life milestones. We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with. These aren’t accomplishments, they are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them. They are the most common thing, ever, in the history of the world. They are, by definition, average. And here’s the thing, why on earth are we settling for average?

If women can do anything, why are we still content with applauding them for doing nothing?

I want to have a shower for a woman when she backpacks on her own through Asia, gets a promotion, or lands a dream job not when she stays inside the box and does the house and kids thing which is the path of least resistance. The dominate cultural voice will tell you these are things you can do with a husband and kids, but as I’ve written before, that’s a lie. It’s just not reality.

You will never have the time, energy, freedom or mobility to be exceptional if you have a husband and kids.

I hear women talk about how “hard” it is to raise kids and manage a household all the time. I never hear men talk about this. It’s because women secretly like to talk about how hard managing a household is so they don’t have to explain their lack of real accomplishments. Men don’t care to “manage a household.” They aren’t conditioned to think stupid things like that are “important.”

Women will be equal with men when we stop demanding that it be considered equally important to do housework and real work. They are not equal. Doing laundry will never be as important as being a doctor or an engineer or building a business. This word play is holding us back.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/

[Spendulus]

Every time I hear someone say that feminism is about validating every choice a woman makes I have to fight back vomit.

Do people really think that a stay at home mom is really on equal footing with a woman who works and takes care of herself? There’s no way those two things are the same. It’s hard for me to believe it’s not just verbally placating these people so they don’t get in trouble with the mommy bloggers.

Having kids and getting married are considered life milestones. We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with. These aren’t accomplishments, they are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them. They are the most common thing, ever, in the history of the world. They are, by definition, average. And here’s the thing, why on earth are we settling for average?

If women can do anything, why are we still content with applauding them for doing nothing?

I want to have a shower for a woman when she backpacks on her own through Asia, gets a promotion, or lands a dream job not when she stays inside the box and does the house and kids thing which is the path of least resistance. The dominate cultural voice will tell you these are things you can do with a husband and kids, but as I’ve written before, that’s a lie. It’s just not reality.

You will never have the time, energy, freedom or mobility to be exceptional if you have a husband and kids.

I hear women talk about how “hard” it is to raise kids and manage a household all the time. I never hear men talk about this. It’s because women secretly like to talk about how hard managing a household is so they don’t have to explain their lack of real accomplishments. Men don’t care to “manage a household.” They aren’t conditioned to think stupid things like that are “important.”

Women will be equal with men when we stop demanding that it be considered equally important to do housework and real work. They are not equal. Doing laundry will never be as important as being a doctor or an engineer or building a business. This word play is holding us back.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/

Say hi to the manufactured myth of Wendy Davis.

[Wilikon]

In response to this video:
http://youtu.be/Il754DfwVJo

[Anon136]

Every time I hear someone say that feminism is about validating every choice a woman makes I have to fight back vomit.

Do people really think that a stay at home mom is really on equal footing with a woman who works and takes care of herself? There’s no way those two things are the same. It’s hard for me to believe it’s not just verbally placating these people so they don’t get in trouble with the mommy bloggers.

Having kids and getting married are considered life milestones. We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with. These aren’t accomplishments, they are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them. They are the most common thing, ever, in the history of the world. They are, by definition, average. And here’s the thing, why on earth are we settling for average?

If women can do anything, why are we still content with applauding them for doing nothing?

I want to have a shower for a woman when she backpacks on her own through Asia, gets a promotion, or lands a dream job not when she stays inside the box and does the house and kids thing which is the path of least resistance. The dominate cultural voice will tell you these are things you can do with a husband and kids, but as I’ve written before, that’s a lie. It’s just not reality.

You will never have the time, energy, freedom or mobility to be exceptional if you have a husband and kids.

I hear women talk about how “hard” it is to raise kids and manage a household all the time. I never hear men talk about this. It’s because women secretly like to talk about how hard managing a household is so they don’t have to explain their lack of real accomplishments. Men don’t care to “manage a household.” They aren’t conditioned to think stupid things like that are “important.”

Women will be equal with men when we stop demanding that it be considered equally important to do housework and real work. They are not equal. Doing laundry will never be as important as being a doctor or an engineer or building a business. This word play is holding us back.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/

I made a similar argument about birthday parties before. I was run out of town. Basically everyone was saying, "survival is very worthy of celebration".

[BestofSR]

I ve met some environmentalists, and got to know them personally. I really dont know from where all that prejudices come, but they really are cool people, sure there maybe some crazy people involved, but in general those are just people with deep love for what is right.

[Anon136]

The chief motivation for most serious environmentalists is actually maintaining or improving quality of life for humans, not preserving the environment for its own sake. And by 'serious' I mean the scientists and engineers working on solutions, and the lobbyists and politicians brave enough to implement them, not the people who chain themselves to trees/badgers.

I don't think this is right.

I think the "chain themselves to trees" types of environmentalists do it as a way of easing their conscience. They have been tricked into being part of a new religion. The environmental impact on the planet of being alive is the new original sin. So this causes them to to feel guilty about consuming resources, something that all living organisms do. Once they feel guilty about consuming resources, products with little green stickers on them can become the new analogue for "confession".

This comes from the fact that religion in general is so prolific because it exploits unmet emotional needs. So when you embrace secularism without addressing the unmet emotional needs behind religion it leaves a void. One thing that can rush in to fill this void is environmentalism because it has all of the same hallmarks as a traditional religion only in a secular context, namely original sin and forgiveness.

Now as for the "real" environmentalists, the scientists and lobbyists. Some of them probably fall into the former category, but others are just rational people who have found ways to capitalize on and profit from what was described in the previous paragraphs.

[Wilikon]

I ve met some environmentalists, and got to know them personally. I really dont know from where all that prejudices come, but they really are cool people, sure there maybe some crazy people involved, but in general those are just people with deep love for what is right.

You simply need to read the first post and link to understand everyone's position. Loving our blue ball in space is good, not evil obviously.

[Anon136]

I don't think this is right.
I think the "chain themselves to trees" types of environmentalists do it as a way of easing their conscience.

I think this is probably correct.

Your "new religion" theory is daft though. Our environmental impact on the planet is beyond question at this point - it's easy to observe that (e.g.) forest and woodland areas are being rapidly reduced, and animal and plant species are going extinct at a faster rate than at any other time we know of since the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period.

I don't doubt that there are people who feel very guilty about this as you say. I don't particularly (all these species only got to live in the first place because the Cretaceous extinction did happen, circle of life etc.) but it is happening.

More important than our "impact on the planet" are the negative effects of these changes on us. Deforestation has been shown to destabilise the water table for example, and increases the risk of floods. A diverse set of species in a region keeps land rich, fertile and beautiful. The global warming trend is causing sea levels to rise and the climates of coastal regions to change, again increasing the risk of flooding and making agriculture difficult. All these problems have nothing to do with a species-wide Mea Culpa, but with our long term prosperity.

I agree with everything here except the part i marked out. So generally we are in agreement on these points. Humans are damaging the planet very severely and I definitely care about that. I don't think the claims in my comment and the claims in your comment are contradictory though.

[Spendulus]

I don't think this is right.
I think the "chain themselves to trees" types of environmentalists do it as a way of easing their conscience.

I think this is probably correct.

Your "new religion" theory is daft though. Our environmental impact on the planet is beyond question at this point - it's easy to observe that (e.g.) forest and woodland areas are being rapidly reduced, and animal and plant species are going extinct at a faster rate than at any other time we know of since the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period.

I don't doubt that there are people who feel very guilty about this as you say. I don't particularly (all these species only got to live in the first place because the Cretaceous extinction did happen, circle of life etc.) but it is happening.

More important than our "impact on the planet" are the negative effects of these changes on us. Deforestation has been shown to destabilise the water table for example, and increases the risk of floods. A diverse set of species in a region keeps land rich, fertile and beautiful. The global warming trend is causing sea levels to rise and the climates of coastal regions to change, again increasing the risk of flooding and making agriculture difficult. All these problems have nothing to do with a species-wide Mea Culpa, but with our long term prosperity.

No, it isn't daft.  Even though regional environmental impacts can be shown which support many of your assertions, it's beyond question that some have made something of a religion out of it. 

I think it's a gross exaggeration to go anywhere near a claim that environmentalists, and even extreme environmentalists, are part and parcel of this "new religion" per se. 

But certainly a fair number of them are.

[bryant.coleman]

Radical feminism is a failed idea. They tried it in Sweden and the end results are for everyone to see. The Swedish males are no longer masculine. And their places has been taken by immigrant Somalis and Arabs, who already constitute 20% of the population. And once they get the majority, guess who will be their prime targets.... the same radfems who brought them to Sweden.... 

[Anon136]

I agree with everything here except the part i marked out. So generally we are in agreement on these points. Humans are damaging the planet very severely and I definitely care about that. I don't think the claims in my comment and the claims in your comment are contradictory though.

My main contention was your implication that all serious environmentalists are either part of a "religion" (a term which to me specifically implies rejection of observations in favour of faith in a particular result) or are profiting from the credulity of those who are. It seems we agree on many points as you say.

Re. the global temperature trend, I would refer you to the following, from Mann, Hughes et al:



Which indicates a clear warming trend beginning in the late 19th century (coinciding with the peak of the industrial revolution) that dwarfs fluctuations over a similar time-frame in at least the last millennium. The study is widely considered to be robust, with careful consideration of the limitations of various techniques commonly used. I presume you know that a great wealth of studies have found similar results, so I would ask why you disagree?

I dont find this graph very convincing. Why does it only use tree rings when there are so many more reliable methods available like coral samples and ice cores? Another scientist provided such a graph with a broader data collection methods for submission in the exact same ipcc report which did not show this dramatic hockey stick. Why was the more dramatic graph utilizing less data chosen over the one that was less dramatic with more data? I mean its not like climate scientists would stand to benefit from the public being alarmed by climate statistics or anything, so we know its not that /sarcasm. Why does dr mann suddenly switch to thermometer data as soon as it becomes available? Sure its more accurate data but in order to have an objective comparison you cant simply switch data collection methods half way through the chart. It reeks of lysenkoism.

Of course i could be wrong. In which case its worth pointing out that the benefits of warming would likely outweigh the costs. Presently there is more land rendered uninhabitable due to extreme cold than extreme heat.

*note* i know you didnt claim that the government should attempt to solve this problem. i wanted to point that out so that i dont get accused of strawmaning.

And even if its not the case that we would be made better off from global warming there is still this very strong argument against spending any significant amounts of money on fighting it because it would almost certainly be cheaper to address the issues as they arrive. All we have to do is get the government out of the insurance business and the risk of building on areas which were in danger of being effected by rising sea levels would be priced into the market over night. This would incentive people to move out of flood prone areas long before the flooding became a problem. Additionally erecting man made barricades around cities would almost certainly be cheaper than the net costs of carbon taxes or carbon credit schemes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0

Its a very complicated issue which is very hard to discover the truth on because there are many perverse incentives at work here mostly resulting from the extent that governments stand to gain from convincing the public of the reality of this mother of all market failure problems. Maybe its real maybe it isnt but it surely isn't as simple as "hey look at my hockey stick, discussion over".

[Spendulus]

I agree with everything here except the part i marked out. So generally we are in agreement on these points. Humans are damaging the planet very severely and I definitely care about that. I don't think the claims in my comment and the claims in your comment are contradictory though.

My main contention was your implication that all serious environmentalists are either part of a "religion" (a term which to me specifically implies rejection of observations in favour of faith in a particular result) or are profiting from the credulity of those who are. It seems we agree on many points as you say.

Re. the global temperature trend, I would refer you to the following, from Mann, Hughes et al:



Which indicates a clear warming trend beginning in the late 19th century (coinciding with the peak of the industrial revolution) that dwarfs fluctuations over a similar time-frame in at least the last millennium. The study is widely considered to be robust...

Ah, the famous Mann hockey stick chart.  The one that ignores the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period.  The one that hinges on a couple of tree ring bores to prop itself up.

The one that ignores tree rings past a moment of choosing (~1960s).

Using flawed statistical methodology by which random data, plugged in, will generate an identical hockey stick.

[Anon136]

Ah, the famous Mann hockey stick chart.  The one that ignores the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period.  The one that hinges on a couple of tree ring bores to prop itself up.

The one that ignores tree rings past a moment of choosing (~1960s).

also good points i forgot to mention. sooo much funny business with this chart.

[Spendulus]

Ah, the famous Mann hockey stick chart.  The one that ignores the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period.  The one that hinges on a couple of tree ring bores to prop itself up.

The one that ignores tree rings past a moment of choosing (~1960s).

also good points i forgot to mention. sooo much funny business with this chart.

Actually I don't think the problems are with the chart.   It is just a bit of badly worked science to be discussed.  

The problems are with the ways that people reacted to valid scientific criticisms of the chart and it's methods, feeling seemingly obliged to defend it.

It's counter productive to defend wrong, even if you are an environmentalist that sincerely wants to save the planet.  Maybe especially in that case.  

Anyway the new IPCC report is considerably less alarmist than the Mann hockey stick.  But alarmists will continue to reach into the past and select the most alarming bits of "science" to support their claims.  The new report cannot ignore that the recent 15-17 years of cooling and/or stable temperatures clearly show that climate sensitivity is considerably lower than it was possible to claim in the past.

More importantly, we should all take note that simply extrapolating the last couple decades apparent trendline does not work and has no predictive value.