Anti-Humans
Anti-Humans
(OP)
I've often referred to the environmental lobby as "anti-human". I just came across a document on the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) web site that supports that idea. The whole document is at Laramie Energy, but I've extracted a page from it that I've attached.
The attached is a series of quotes from noted environmentalists. I especially like the quote from John Davis (editor of Earth First) who said
I think that the quotes in the attached fully support the idea that the law firms generally called "Environmental Non-Government Organizations (e-NGO)" are totally and completely against their own species.
David
The attached is a series of quotes from noted environmentalists. I especially like the quote from John Davis (editor of Earth First) who said
orQuote:
Human beings as a species have no more value than slugs
Quote (PETA):
I do not believe that a human being has a right to life ... I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals
I think that the quotes in the attached fully support the idea that the law firms generally called "Environmental Non-Government Organizations (e-NGO)" are totally and completely against their own species.
David





RE: Anti-Humans
I believe we have a direct command from God to take care of the earth and the animals/etc. People sometimes act like my 4-yr old and throw fits when they can't have exactly what they want when they want it, regardless of the rotten consequences it may bring about.
RE: Anti-Humans
I think that I have an obligation as an engineer to minimize the resources consumed and to reduce the environmental impact (within the bounds of required performance) on the activities I'm involved with. That has NOTHING to do with environmental activism.
I've been reviewing quite a bit of writing prepared by the e-NGO's this past year, and I find that list of quotations to be perfectly in line with the published writings of Wild Earth Guardians, San Juan Citizen's Alliance, Sierra Club, and PETA.
I'm going to assume that you were talking about the people I quoted with your "4-year old" comment even though John Muir was in his 70's when he said what was quoted. If I thought you were talking about me I'd probably take offence.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Anti-Humans
David
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
Murder: apes, dolphins, horses, chipmunks
Abortion: horses, big cats
Infanticide: very long list including cats
Cannibalism: a multitude of fish species
Thrill killing: dolphins, northern pike, cats, terriers
Resource depletion: sheep
War: chimps
Rape: dolphins
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
I don't argue with you that there are eco-extremists and others on the "alarmist" side of AGW that do not understand the issues or the consequences of actions to remedy AGW (or reduce the rate of consumption of resources). They purpose drastic changes that will have major ecological and economical ramifications that they have not thought of. There are others that purpose similar changes but are fully aware of the ramifications but believe them to be appropriate. Then there is the just-plan-crazies like PETA who should be laughed at from both sides of the debate, not used as justification for one side being right.
I believe that the majority of environmentalists, discounting the extremists, are almost the exact opposite of anti-human. They feel, rightly or wrongly, that our actions effective the environment in a manner that will, at some point, be detrimental to ALL humans.
Most of the people on these forums would be in position to ride out a major change in climate (IF it came) but what about the vast majority of Africa/Asia/South America? IF AGW is true and Africa continues to see extreme droughts, they will not be able to hop on a plane and relocate to a climate less effected (i.e. North America/Europe...where the majority of us on this forum are located), they won't be able to drive down to the supermarket and pick up fruits imported from another continent, their "governments" won't be able to supply aid to them. Environmentalists call for more stringent regulation not for the benefit of you and I, but for those that can't protect themselves from climate changes. What is LESS anti-human than that?
An interesting thing to consider is the idea of cultural cognition, the concept that people form perceptions of risks based on the self-defining values of their environment. Yale law professor, Dan Kahan writes in "Nature" that people "find it disconcerting to believe that behaviour that they find noble is nevertheless detrimental to society, and behaviour that they find base is beneficial to it. Because accepting such a claim could drive a wedge between them and their peers, they have a strong emotional predisposition to reject it".
So for North Americans, the idea of climate change is a lot of economic and life-style risk if we were to adopt some of these regulations but the risk of doing nothing and AGW causing major damage is less immediate for us due to our financial and political ability to be resilient in the face of changing climate/resource depletion. Whereas, the vast majority of the developing world carries lower risk to the effect on life-style but an incredibly large risk in the event of climate change/resource starvation.
Being that the vast majority of the lobbying power for or against environmental regulation lies with developed nations, we cannot let our comfy environment cloud our judgment on what the correct thing to do is. I DO NOT mean to say that the correct thing to do is put in a carbon tax and prevent free trade but it is not good enough to say that doing something about it will be too much of an inconvenience for me; we must be more humanitarian than that.
I have followed AGW threads on this forum with great interest. I feel that it is a place where intelligent people, from both sides of the debate, can discuss the issue. Unfortunately, I see terms such as "anti-human", "denialists" and "alarmists" used too often to describe the other side. The use of these terms undermines what is otherwise an important and intellectually stimulating debate into a squawking-fest of "you're an idiot" (both sides are very guilty of this).
Again, I don't question that the quotes that you've selected here are probably best described by the term "anti-human" but I would like to see the argument be less polarized. I feel that both sides are closer to each other than we think (on this forum at least) because both see conservation as important; the difference is the approach and extent to which we take it.
For context, I am on the side for socioeconomic-environmental reform but am not 100% sold (we'll say 66%) on the fact that AGW will cause catastrophic damage to the planet. However, I am sold on the concept that to live in an infinite growth paradigm on a planet with a finite amount of resources will eventually be our demise, whether it is through AGW, lack of oil, lack of fresh water, lack of cultivatable land or other and 200 years from now or 10,000 years. I see enough evidence that makes me believe that serious action is required. Again, not to say this is right but just as context for my response.
I'd also like to say that I have personally enjoyed some of your counter-arguments to AGW/environmental regulation that you've made in other threads zdas04, you bring a very grounded view to the table. However, when you use terms like "anti-human" you devalue your point and make it sound more like, "I'm right, you're a crazy nut job, go join PETA you hippy" (that was purposefully hyperbolic for an attempt at humour...hopefully you still get my point).
RE: Anti-Humans
Using, or taking, a gate is generally easier then jumping a fence.
So taking a gate is easier than taking offense.
More seriously, the Environmental lobby is so diverse that generalizing can be tricky.
For instance there are 'environmentalists' both for and against certain things like wind turbines or even nuclear depending on what aspect of 'the environment' they prioritize.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Anti-Humans
Thanks for that video link, I've seen it before, but it is always wonderful.
rconnor,
I absolutely did not mention AGW. I have been working for the last year preparing an industry response to the current EPA effort to substantially increase the purported "air-quality" regulations on Oil & Gas. This "cost effective" (a term used repeatedly in the preamble to the regulation, not a term that I would apply to it) regulation will impose requirements, some of which cost upwards of $1 million USD/tonne of VOC avoided--and they say repeatedly that it is not intended to regulate GHG. This regulation was forced by a consent decree in a case brought against the EPA by Wild Earth Guardians and San Juan Citizen's Alliance. As part of preparing the industry response I've had to read a couple of thousand pages of e-NGO comments. I have to say that "anti-human" is the kindest thing I can say about this ill-informed nonsense.
The current thread is about my contention that the e-NGO's are anti-human. You say that it is a tiny minority of the environmentalist cause that is that radical. I've never met an "environmentalist" who didn't describe his credentials as "a member of ..." where the "..." is Sierra Club, Wild Earth Guardians, Environmental Defence Fund, etc. If I'm a member of an organization (say ASME) then when I send them my renewal check I am clearly saying that I agree with them more than I disagree, same with membership in an e-NGO. The writings of these organizations show an extreme hatred for the author's species.
I have read documents from each of these e-NGO's that were far more directed at punishing industry than in protecting anything. I've read proposals that would actually increase emissions of some pretty nasty chemicals in the name of punishing companies.
I have to admit that I only read a small part of your lengthy post because it absolutely was not germane to this discussion. If you feel you must talk about AGW, please start your own dang thread.
Please watch the George Carlin video that was linked above to see an hilarious and oh so accurate description of the intention of this thread.
I was actually very proud of myself for not using the term "enviro-wacko" to describe these folks.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
However, had the villains been environmentalists like those in Zdas list of quotes it may have been a bit more believable.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Anti-Humans
It wouldn't matter if some of these people spouting this nonsense were in mental homes or, at the very worst, simply spouting off in their local pub after a pint or two.
The problem is:
a) there is no doubt this is a core belief for these people
b) these people have managed to reach highly influential positions largely out of the spotlight.
They are very much anti-human, it seems.
AGW was the scam by which they were going to achieve their goals. AGW is passe now. WE are even beyond abrupt climate change.
The shift is now to population growth.
This is highlighted in an article in the Guardian.
This came to my attention from a post by Dave Gardiner at Numberwatch who notes that:
Shortly thereafter the 7 billion population point was announced (a notional point in time which has a bandwidth of several years) and in a BBC program not long afterwards to do with food, of all things, a well rehearsed comment was made about 9 billion people and their effect on the world.
The dangers of people like Maurice Strong and his ilk is that they have achieved an unprecedented level of power and influence Rasputin would be proud of.
They have done it it by taking advantage of the infiltration method of gaining power even in democratic societies.
This is the means by which a very small but dedicated group of people can take control over influential organisations out of all proportion to their actual numbers and it allows them to bypass the democratic process.
This is exampled by the way Militant tendency nearly took of the UK labour party.
They do it not by targeting the apparently important jobs in the public eye, like Parliamentary candidate but by becoming officials within the party machine.
They are the Uriah heaps who are only too happy to do all the grunt work, the unglamorous organising work. Progressively they take over the key posts in the party machine and are then the puppet masters.
It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the party members have completely different political views, they are now being manipulated by a very few extremists.
Those in the UK concerned about Cameron's Big Society see behind it the work of Saul Alinsky whose is an adherent of this method of gaining control. Obama has tried to distance himself from Alinsky but he is associated as Cameron is.
In the past there have been reports about the structure of some of the NGOs such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.
A lot of these organisations started out as friendly well intentioned touchy feely warm huggy organisations that attracted the support of hand knit cardigan old ladies etc concerned about Pandas and the white Rhino (but not the demise of the European Brown rat or other less huggable species) and acquired a righteous reputation - and a great deal of funding both from members and governments.
These are the organisations who attract billions in subsidies from governments and who have been infiltrated and taken over.
The original founders are all long gone. Some ousted and some left in disgust.
Conspiracy theories?
Maybe.
Take a look at the background of these organisations.
And yes, even paranoids can have enemies. There can be and are conspiracies. We just are encouraged to dismiss all conspiracy theories like the other gunman on the grassy knoll. UFOs. Indeed, some of these far out conspiracies serve very well to discredit any suggestion of the existence of more real conspiracies.
But to gain control with a very few people, to target the influential positions and puppet master the publicity seeking politicians appears all too easy. It doesn't even take a real conspiracy.
Take a look at some of these lunatics and see just how outrageous their views are and the influence they actually have.
The dangers we should recognise because history is full of examples where lunatics have taken power.
But usually the lunatics have taken centre stage.
The danger of the modern lunatics is they are content to be puppet masters.
They are largely anonymous.
They do not directly slaughter millions of their own people in purges and pogram's. An example is how Rachel Carson's Silent Spring lead to the banning of DDT and the deaths of millions as a result.
There is no Stalin figure we can blame and we cannot really blame Carson. No one is going to bring her before the international court.
This is how it all works.
We have also seen how the MSM is complicit either wittingly or unwittingly in directing our attention and popularising the current fads.
Why? Is it because some of these organisations have also been infiltrated?
Should we be worried?
Well, the younger people might ought to be.
Us older folk may be dead by the time it all falls apart. But there again......
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
George Siros.
Saul ALinsky.
Add Obama and Gore to the search.
To look out for: the Rio Summit in June 2012 where the latest scam will evolve.
A leaked agenda is behind this Guardian article.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
Both camps weild some political power in our society.
Extremists are bad. Extremists in power are worse.
What's your point again?
Other than that, I've got nothing to add, as rconnor said it all so eloquently.
RE: Anti-Humans
The moral high-ground argument for environmental activism falls apart when people say:
"Environmentalists call for more stringent regulation not for the benefit of you and I, but for those that can't protect themselves from climate changes."
These people can't protect themselves right now from much greater, immediate, and real threats. Dowries are still paid in many countries, women are treated as sub-human in many cultures, and there are rampant unspeakable atrocities actively on-going all over the world. These are not "might occur" "if" global warming happens, they are, tangible, documented, seen, reported, CERTAIN to continue.
Do the People in North Korea really need Kyoto? How about Darfur, Rwanda, etc, etc, etc,
If western society has the responsibility to protect people who cannot protect themselves from climate change, then we have the responsibility to overthrow governments that are committing these human rights atrocities. Did environmentalists support the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan to oust regimes that have committed far more horrific acts than simply ejecting too much CO2 in the air?
I akin this to the argument that we need to ban guns because they kill kids. Many, many more kids are killed by bikes, swimming pools and skateboards than guns. If we really want to save lives, lets ban the those first, then the guns.
People are suffering from far worse than the prospect of what "may" happen "if" climate change is real. If we don't address those issues first, it wil not matter what may happen if global warming is real.
My one, and only post on this.
IC
RE: Anti-Humans
Strange as it sounds, I don't hear about reforrestations projects, or educuation programs to teach these people to better manage there land.
After all, it was some of the same issues in the early US that drove people west (Along with large families, and shortages of land).
Education, and health services is the key to many of these problems. Not preaching AGW to educated people.
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
Nobel Peace Prize can't be worth much. They gave them to people who haven't done anything.
Or is this some of the bias in news. Show the bad, and not the good. Such a depressing viewpoint.
RE: Anti-Humans
My intent was not to turn this into an AGW debate, it was to express my concern over the terms that both sides use to identify the other side (anti-human vs. deniers) that polarize the debate and turn it into an emotional argument rather than an intellectual debate. Moreover, my intent was to discuss the base ideology of both sides, which I believe you attempted to comment on.
(I liked the George Carlin video; I'm a big fan of his)
jwm,
Are you saying that the environmental lobby is more powerful/influential/corrupt than the corporate/oil lobby? Really? Now, I'm not one of those that believes that the oil lobby is some evil entity set on destroying the planet but if you want to call the environmetal lobby as something similar than I think you are pretty far off.
ImminentCollapse,
You bring up a very good point and I agree with you; there are more immediate issues that developing countries are concerned with. However, I feel that a lot of these, at least where Western civilizations hold some blame, is in the exploitation of these countries due to capitalistic ideology. The same ideology that is strongly opposed to the idea of environmental reform and the same ideology that is responsible for the current economic climate.
This is where environmentally driven reform meets with economic and sociologic reform. The idea that environmental reform may alter our capitalistic system may also have economic and sociologic benefits as well.
The opposition to this is largely based on the concept of cultural cognition that I spoke to before. Because our current capitalistic system is so engrained in our very being, it is hard to accept that it is failing us on many fronts. And if you don't believe the environmental or sociological reasons then just the economic reasons alone are cause for change. We can no longer have a greedy, short-term thinking corporate culture that is solely based on maximizing profits this quarter while damning the entire global economic system (not to mention exploitation of developing nations and careless use of resources).
Deregulation has caused catastrophic damage to the global economy, just as it did with the whole Enron issue and healthcare, and so I'm not sure why people so zealously defend deregulation, given its track record. Granted, careless and short sighted regulation can cause equal (if not worse) harm, which is why this topic is so important. But the idea that change is needed is (or ought to be) accepted by both sides. This brings me full circle to the idea that polarizing terms like "anti-human" and "denier" undermine the core of this debate.
Also, to compare Darfur/Rwanda with Iraq is apples and oranges. One was a mass genocide where Western society largely ignored it. The other was a dictator who was oppressing his people/had WMD's/hiding a world-wide wanted terrorist (opps, scratch those last two) and western society started a multi-billion dollar multi-year war/occupation. Also, one was based in a country with large oil reserves and the other was in a largely resourceless area of Africa...(not that I feel that was the only reason for the Iraq war but it might be a key difference on why we didn't move in as whole-heartedly to aid in Rwanda, which was a much worse situation)
Very sorry for another lengthy post.
RE: Anti-Humans
My intention in posting the attachment to my first post was to show the e-NGO's in a light that is not quite as flattering as the media presents them. They are run by people (mostly lawyers) who act as though they see the world as either "perfect" or "perfectly wrong". An "unspoiled" ANWAR (even with natural oil seeps) is perfect. ANWAR with a drilling rig, pipeline construction, and significant limitations on environmental impact is perfectly wrong.
Reading their published documents makes me certain that their agenda has less to do with "protecting the environment" than it does in punishing industry. "Industry" has done some reprehensible things, but so have environmentalists. I get very sick of hearing these lawyers protrayed as saints.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
You said
""" This is exampled by the way Militant tendency nearly took of the UK labour party.
They do it not by targeting the apparently important jobs in the public eye, like Parliamentary candidate but by becoming officials within the party machine.
They are the Uriah heaps who are only too happy to do all the grunt work, the unglamorous organising work. Progressively they take over the key posts in the party machine and are then the puppet masters.
It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the party members have completely different political views, they are now being manipulated by a very few extremists."""
Now are you suggesting that people opposed to these views should do the same by infiltrating these groups at the bottom.
I cannot see the people who inhabit these forums having the inclination or the stomach to do that. It would be like going out and socialising with the hogs.
B.E.
The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
RE: Anti-Humans
That's awful. Hogs can be very nice people. They only eat their young sometimes. I would rather socalize with them than with enviro-lawyers.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
Just a thought.
RE: Anti-Humans
I reported how Militant tendency nearly obtained control and that the methods to do so are described by Saul Alinsky in one of his books and that this pretty much how many NGOs have also been taken over by extremists.
I said nothing about doing the same to regain control.
The fact that these people are usually a minority means that by resolute action the rest of the membership can take suitable democratic steps to remove these people once identified.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
No, the destruction of civilization as we know it occurs when enough people become MBAs.
Regards,
SNORGY.
RE: Anti-Humans
Question asked and answers offered many times.
The search for alien life has been a long standing project and a great deal of thought given to what we should expect.
One of the ways to search is for radio signatures. In fact this is the basis of some of the work being done now.
The problem is the speed of light. If we ever detect an alien life signature it will be from a civilisation that existed long ago. Unless, of course, we can find some signatures transmitted via wormholes.... so we need to find a few of these maybe if we want to find current civilisations.
The existence of aliens is a statistical probability.
Recent astronomical work has now revealed a number of "earth-like" planets round other stars so we can be assured they exist and 99.999999999999% sure of alien civilisations.
The question of alien visitation is something else.
The first consideration is timelines.... what is the likelihood of an alien civilisation having solved the problem of travelling over vast interstellar distances (with a reasonable journey time)and deciding to visit the earth at this time?
Is there anything special about the earth? We are pretty remote from anywhere interesting. More likely initial journeys would be in search of scientific data. There are plenty of astronomical phenomena that would provide a much more relevant focus of interest than sifting through lots of "earth-like" planets, especially if they prove common, simply to find some primitive civilisations. (love the Gateway stories....)
Would we be the polynesian natives visited by Captain Cook or would we be the Native Americans or Native Australians visited by "superior" cultures or would those cultures have also learned the lessons of culture clashes and taken care not to contact us just yet?
Do UFO's exist, or rather, are some UFO sightings evidence of alien visitations?
Or should we expect any culture capable of interstellar travel would have better stealth mode than to be detected by our primitive technology?
More importantly, why would they be interested in a vastly inferior culture that can just about manage to get to its own moon but has problems landing anything on MARS (unless THEY are there on Mars observing and don't want to be found?
The assumptions have to be that for whatever percentage of alien civilisations that destroy themselves in nuclear war, some proportion, however small, will avoid this catastrophe and the next and the next after that etc and survive. Sort of like a knock out contest where we have to expect that at least some alien civilisations will survive.
These will be pretty smart and advanced to be able then to develop routine interstellar traffic.
We might better hope we remain undiscovered until such time as we also have reached that level.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
RE: Anti-Humans
We spent most of our energies on petty endevers, to enrich ourselves or control others. Only a few of us bother to explore the universe, for which the rest of us become angry for the riches spent on doing so.
And we can't even feed and educate a large part of the world population, although we have the means.
RE: Anti-Humans
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com
RE: Anti-Humans
I had a conversation last night about why the term sustainable growth is an oxymoron.
RE: Anti-Humans
I'm a huge fan, ever since I read the one about traffic engineering.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com
RE: Anti-Humans
Why do we keep assuming that an alien civilization will be wise and virtuous? Perhaps they are searching for a new planet because they destroyed theirs.
Terrestrial species last an average of something like four million years. Probably, we would not survive a end-of-Cretaceous style meteorite impact.
I think an environmental collapse would be survivable, at least in the gene vector sense. There would just be less of us, with a reduced quality of life.
RE: Anti-Humans
Our best bet for survival, if we need rescuing, is a mercenary race which would exact a price.
If we don't need rescuing, better a moral race discovers us and stay the heck out of the way knowing full well the perils of culture shock.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
RE: Anti-Humans
He leans toward the idea that if aliens are like humans one of us would destroy the other.
RE: Anti-Humans
Any good reasons why?
Maybe our advancements in some areas are far exceeding those in other areas. Or our advanced thinking, really isen't so advanced.
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
David
RE: Anti-Humans
We agree on one thing at least: Folks in PETA are nut-jobs.
Regards,
SNORGY.
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
David
RE: Anti-Humans
Synonyms, I suppose.
Regards,
SNORGY.
RE: Anti-Humans
http:
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
It seems reasonable to collect the views of interest groups but when, Alinsky style, those NGOS are taken over by activists with a different agenda that the treaty process fails because they are not interested in reality. They consider that the normal outcome of treaties which is consensus where all parties arrive at a solution acceptable to all is actually a compromise.
The NGOS hate consensus results because they arrive at a 1.5 realistic sulphur limit for marine fuels but they want and will force through a 1.0% unsustainable limit and they want this as a step to a 0.1% limit.
This is when the consensus is lost and when come countries decide to comply and others decide not to.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
We can put all that money into some alternitive, like mass transportation.
RE: Anti-Humans
Imagine the ALL SUV line-up:)
RE: Anti-Humans
David
RE: Anti-Humans
Their idea of "reasonable" "affordable" "Justifiable" and "doable" is when everyone agrees to do what they want whether it is in fact any of these things.
The various NGO web sites are happy to conflate all pollutants under one generic heading and allow the lay public to assume that they are all greenhouses gases, for example when SOX actually offsets the greenhouse gases... and why some eco engineers wnat to create artificial volcanoes to spew sulphur into the atmosphere as part of limiting warming while others are busy bring the hammer down on SOX emissions and without explanation of why these might both be necessary if they are.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
i remember the "West Wing" episode where a bunch of renewable enrgy factions were viaing for a hand-out; each spent 50% of their time boasting they were the only viable solution and 50% slagging off the others.
"people's front of judea ... bloody splinter group"
and good lord above, i hope we don't go seeding the atmosphere with sulphur or we'll end up like Venus (the planet, not the godess).
RE: Anti-Humans
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
I stopped reading at that point, I know if I'd gone on there would have been a discussion of pople being probed by space aliens and Elvis still being alive on some grassy knoll somewhere.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
Tests have been conducted, we are assured.
The idea of volcanoes was subsequent development.
I just picked that as the first link to the concept.
Perhaps the Guardian article is more attractive?
Despite having all the credentials, this is regrettably not one of those easily dismissed "two headed calves stories and Elvis sightings", stories famous with the National Enquirer. Though, with its total addiction to AGW and its fostering of Moonbat the Guardian environmental stories probable do verge into that sort of journalistic arena.
So how about the Torygraph?
This article looks at tethered balloons and hose-pipes tests in Norfolk but suggests artificial volcanoes may be a last resort.
Sadly, the AGW buffoons at the Telegraph are no more credible than Moonbat.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
Think Eugenics for one.
It wasn't just Nazi Germany that practised this. Indeed, it was at one time popular with many countries and US states.
Most recently in the UK social workers have prevented two mental challenged people from marrying. Despite the reasons given, the effect is that of eugenics.
Or think Lysenko. Lysenko became popular in Russia at a time when most scientists were busy being purged and enjoying holidays in the Gulags (a sort of Butlins for Russians).
No, the propoennets of such ideas may be mad as hatters but that doesn't mean they won';t be allowed to do their damnedest.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
This is the same issue with goverments getting involved in making human decisions over people. Who should decide?
At this point the UN is taking the same path to make human decisions.
RE: Anti-Humans
governments, and kings, and leaders of all sorts, have been doing this since man organised himself into groups ... all members of a group abdicate some personal decision making to the leader; if the leader annoys too many followers, they do something about it ...
i'm just sommenting of the sulphur seeding scheme as quite possibly the worst idea (however well intented, and aren't they the worst ?) since sliced bread. particularly when you consider the effect of natural volcanoes, and the huge amount of SOx they produce (at random intervals) ... how would Anything we do have much effect ? and i fear that just the opposite would happen, and it might have a huge (unintended) effect, and then where'd we be ??
RE: Anti-Humans
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
On a smaller scale, all over the Southwest U.S. we were going to fix riverbank erosion by planting Russian Olive and Salt Cedar trees. Both very hardy fast growing species that quickly pushed out the native plants. Now both are classed as "invasive" we're fixing that by clear cutting river banks and the dirt is washing into the rivers.
Every single action I can think of that well-intentioned people take to "fix" a natural problem has unintended consequences that are generally worse than the original problem. We never will learn that predators have a place in the circle of life and that when we "fix" something we are going to break something else.
Bring on the man-made volcanoes. I can only imagine what the world-wide crises of 2020 will look like.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
What amazes me is the way pet shops and garden centres seem able to import what they like and sell what they like to who they like. (On the other hand, the US apparently has more snow tigers as pets than there are still in the wild.)
Nice fluffy bunny, how do you like the land of Oz?
Here's a nice pacific island we can moor up to shore, empty the ship light the smoke pots and drive out the rats.
Like your new island home, rats?
Kudzu.... great stuff. The whole of the south is strangled in the damn stuff.
In the UK the great forestry plantations are all of European species (Cyrpus pine or something, I can't remember offhand) which supports none of the native wildlife though grey squirrels (American immigrants) are OK with them.
The English oak supports around a thousand different species.
Europe wants to make the European oak the standard.... as if it has anything to do with them.... because it has straighter limbs. I have no idea what its impact will be.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
hasn't the EU done similar with the British sausage ('cause it ain't the same as good german sausage), and British cheese ?
RE: Anti-Humans
And, now that I think about it it is not the Cyprus pine but the Corsican Pine that is the villain.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
And yes, Napoleon and all his relatives and successors.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
Would loggers be classified as tree preditors? Would the solution of over grown non-native trees be loggers?
We can fix some problems, even the ones we create. We just have to have the will and allow some things to happen.
Maybe loggers need hunting tags like deer hunters.
RE: Anti-Humans
David
RE: Anti-Humans
Just let them add 6 VP's of whatever, an entire HR department, retain attorneys, hire a PR firm, janitorial firm, some Safety officers and suddenly, one truck load a day isn't going to work anymore...
Regards,
Mike
RE: Anti-Humans
There is a TV show on PBS in the U.S. called "Ask This Old House". A few weeks back they showed us how to use a chain saw. Not a single one of the tips they showed were being used by the guys behind my mom's house. I worked in the log woods in High School (my primary job was skiding logs out with a mule, I am that old). If someone had showed up in ANY of that safety gear they would have been laughed out of the woods--hard hats with attached hearing protection, steel-toed boots (Kevlar over the ankle of course), leather chaps, full face shield, gloves with gauntlets to the elbow, etc. We wore shorts, tee shirts, and tennis shoes, some wore gloves because getting hit with small limbs whipping around stung (most didn't), no eye protection, no hearing protection, certainly no chaps or gauntlets. We all lived. In fact I only remember one fatal accident and two hospitalizations in my county over the six years I knew anything about the log woods. The nanny society is not really about protecting workers, it is about slowing down productivity so there will be more jobs.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
B.E.
The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
RE: Anti-Humans
David
RE: Anti-Humans
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
David
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
Thats the one.
B.E.
The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
RE: Anti-Humans
Would you prefer that your kids handle a chain saw with or without protection?
What if I mentioned that one of those casualties was a dear friend of mine?
RE: Anti-Humans
As to your friend, he's your friend, he would just be a name to me. We all enter this world with a death sentence and spend our whole lives with it hanging over our heads. I read the other day about a guy that survived a boulder falling on his car. I read about another guy that tripped on a paved walking path, hit his head, and died. One guy survives 2 months in a snowed in car. Another guy dies from hypothermia on a 50F day. If you tell me your friend died of injuries from "improperly" handling a chain saw I may feel sympathy for you and his family, but that would not cause me to start lobbying for mandated PPE.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
Part of safe use is the ability to react appropriately to audible and visible signals. The signals are better left unfiltered.
Being acutely aware is your greatest safety device.
Being nonchalant or complacent is your greatest danger.
Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
RE: Anti-Humans
Personal safety starts with knowing your limits.
After all the biggest chance most of us take is driving. And with cars that get the mandated 50MPG, none of them come stock with a roll cage, or those 5MPH bumpers the highway department uses. And what's with placing bus stops so close to the road.
RE: Anti-Humans
I once managed to get hit in the eye by a practice golf ball (waffle ball type thing) and it was rather unpleasant. So since then I've tended to be a bit more thorough on PPE, especially eye protection naturally enough.
I mean, cowboys did have what today might be termed PPE - broad brimmed hats for sun shade, chaps to reduce injury to their legs...
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Anti-Humans
After all, how many people have all the recommended safery equipment for a wood shop. Most people have some, but not enough to satisfy OHSA.
For me, if I can't buy it at home depo, I don't have it.
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
Driving is by far the most dangerous thing we do every day, but because we're behind the wheel, we feel safe because we have the illusion of control over our destiny. The same people who skydive will find a 1/1000000 lifetime potential increased risk of cancer due to the actions of some nearby business to be an unacceptable risk.
What drives me crazy about PPE is that it is just assumed that using the PPE represents no increased risk versus not using it, and that is seldom if ever true. Safety glasses with side shields impair my peripheral vision, increasing my risk of tripping and falling, and especially of having car crashes if I forget to take them off again before getting behind the wheel. Hard hats increase, rather than decrease, the number of times per day I bump my head- and while my head is protected, my neck begs to differ. When we take the thought out of the process of selecting PPE appropriate for a task, we may improve compliance with arbitrary rules, but I'm not convinced we make anyone safer except perhaps the company lawyer.
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Anti-Humans
If you play more than twice you are one of the former.
B.E.
The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
RE: Anti-Humans
Good points. I'd like to add one--fall protection. I have never put on fall protection that I didn't trip over the damn lanyard. Once I was 15 ft off the ground, tripped over the lanyard and landed flat on my face on the (luckily) top of the structure I was working on. It hurt bad, but if I'd fallen off the edge (with fall protection) I would have certainly slammed the side harder (due to the angle of the fall). On the other hand, if I'd been up there (like I'd been 50 times before the policy went into effect) without fall protection I wouldn't have felt like a spavined duck and I would have looked after my own safety and would have gotten the job done faster and safer.
I truly hate it when companies try to lower their risk with policies rather than having people doing the work stop and assess the task and pick appropriate PPE for the task. That risks someone (maybe one in a million, maybe one in a dozen, we'll never know) erring on the wrong side of the line and getting hurt. Before the Nanny Society took over, serious injuries were pretty rare, I would venture that on my jobs they were less frequent before the overindulgence in PPE than after (the only lost time accident I ever had to report on my projects was an eye injury on a guy that felt like he could get right on top of a peanut grinder with safety glasses that didn't fit too well).
I do know that the ONLY time I'm safer with fall protection is when I'm in a man basket with nowhere to walk.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
From years of having to wear the dammed things I can tell you that they lure you into a false sense of security.
Then when you wear your street shoes, you have a tendancy not to jerk your foot out of the way when something falls.
B.E.
The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
RE: Anti-Humans
I walked through a factory and watched someone changing a light bulb on a 30' ceiling. The fork truck lifted him 15' the last 8' was a stack of pallets he was standing on...........
Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations
RE: Anti-Humans
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
RE: Anti-Humans
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Anti-Humans
I spent a few years in the construction industry from the early 1990s through the mid 2000s. Even during that time, OSHA was implementing new regulations that made the job site safer.
The company owners invariably tried to use lawyers to get out of trouble rather than make the job safer with the same money.
I believe that every person I worked for would have gladly traded my life for a few thousand dollars, as long as it wasn't put quite like that.
http://ww
RE: Anti-Humans
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been tracking workplace death and accidents since about 1928 when the death rate was approximately 16 per 100,000 workers. By 1947, that was down to about 10, and by 1970, down to 6.8, and by 1992 is was down to 3.5. That all sounds fine and good, but when you factor in that OSHA wasn't created until 1970, you can see that OSHA had no effect on the rate of decline in fatal workplace accidents. It created government jobs, regulations, and additional business costs that were all passed on to the consumer. But there is no apparent effect on workplace safety. Fatal workplace accidents were on the decline before OSHA and they continued on the decline after OSHA. But OSHA had zero effect on the rate of decline.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Anti-Humans
However, federal, and state to a lesser extent, regulations have resulted in a significant drop in accidental fatalities in general, such as highway fatalities and workplace fatalities.
The first federal mine safety laws were enacted in the early part of the 20th century, and fatalities saw a immediate and sustained drop. The same can be said of many federal regulations.
Granted that a lot of the increased safety over time is due to newer technologies, but government regulation plays a large role.
My post is primarily aimed at the belief, which I hear a lot being in the Southern U.S., that the government is evil and its regulations are harmful to the country.
I would not argue that government regulations are wholly good or properly enforced, but they have generally been good for the average person.
RE: Anti-Humans
So, initally, some real gains are made for little cost. As things get safer, the gains are smaller, the cost higher. As their existence depends upon improving safety, workplaces are never, and CAN NEVER BE, "safe enough".
I have used OSHA, safety and workplaces as shorthand for a whole host of organizations and causes. Clean air, clean water, fuel mileage, exercise, diet, the list is endless. And they NEVER STOP.
Regards,
Mike
RE: Anti-Humans
You are absolutely right--OSHA is not a cause, it is not even an efffect, it is just an irrelevant signpost on a path that was inevitable.
At the start of your timeline the world was just starting to learn how to have workers in close proximity with each other handling incredible forces. With time the workers became more familiar with the forces and population density, engineers figured out how to make the tooling more effective (which usually results in fewer manual interventions that put body parts in harms way), and employers were figuring out that there are limits to how far they can push workers before they push back (with unions, etc). All of those things are evolutionary. Government intervention was just noise in the system. It continues to be.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Anti-Humans
"BEIJING, Jan. 11, 2008 (Xinhua) -- A senior official with the Chinese work safety watchdog said Friday that 101,480 people died in workplace and transportation accidents in 2007."
1.32 Billion Chinese in 2007
7.7 Deaths / 100,000
Well over double the US over the same time period.
Has anyone here been apart of negotiating fines with OSHA?
Seems to me the final price of the fine is always talked down to a small fraction of the initial price tag. Makes it feel like you are dealing with a used car salesman not a government official.
Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations
RE: Anti-Humans
Given that the BLS has been tracking the data since 1928 (long before OSHA existed and well before off-shoring became an issue), and that the data is reported, not in raw deaths, but as a ratio - fatalities per 100K workers, and finally, given that the rate of decline in that ratio has been essentially constant over the entire 70+ year period, I think it's fair to say that off-shoring has had every little effect on the rate of fatalities in the workplace.
On the other hand, if off-shoring did contribute to a reduction in the fatality per 100K worker rate, and actually helped keep that decline rate constant, one would understandably ask what would the rate have done without the influence of off-shoring? In other words, what would the rate have been with OSHA alone?
I suspect that the single biggest factor in recent times in favor of safety in the workplace has nothing to do with off-shoring and nothing to do with OSHA. I think the biggest influence comes from torts.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Anti-Humans
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Anti-Humans
Unless you really don't care about astronomical premiums.
B.E.
The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
RE: Anti-Humans
I believe this because enviromental regulations have likewise driven some tasks off shore.
Just like any hidden taxes will drive production off shore, as long as import taxes are low.
RE: Anti-Humans
Despite this, we've got customers who won't do business with us basically because we don't commit fraud in recording our lost time incident rate. So in a nutshell, one of our guys who strained his back lacing up his boots in the changeroom in the morning and had to go to the clinic and then home for the day, effectively cost us a job with a certain client. How does that sort of regime improve anyone's safety? This so-called "culture of safey", with stats being used to determine who it's safe to do business with isn't improving safety one iota- it's a freaking scam!
Having good quality, well-maintained PPE on hand for anyone who wants to use it, and training people in the selection and use of appropriate PPE for the task at hand- these are good ideas. Forcing people to wear PPE irrespective of the hazards they're actually exposed to is quite the opposite- it is more likely to cause harm than to prevent it.
RE: Anti-Humans
As a boss of mine put it, the PPE only makes a difference in an open or closed casket funeral.
RE: Anti-Humans
There is absolutely nothing about their policy that improves anyone's safety. I mostly am too busy to start any of their projects. I really should just cancel the MSA so I don't have to spend an (unbilled) hour a month filling out the survey.
David
RE: Anti-Humans
I have worked for companies where 3 accidents in a 2 year period put them on the assigned risk list,and others where 10 accidents in a year only cost them a 10% increase in premiums.
Of course the smaller you are the worse these results can get if you have any kind of claim.
Then of course if you have a claim like a small cut on an employees hand that you just pay out of your own pocket, the insurance company can ding you if they find out, because you did not notify them they were " on risk"
The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
RE: Anti-Humans
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com
RE: Anti-Humans
Talk about conversations of the left and right hands.
RE: Anti-Humans
So now we have a new NGO/Charity set up to keep tabs on another....?
Like it.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Anti-Humans
AH, OK ignore the popup and click on the page behind it.
They're in denial.
Not denial as in "We didn't do it and the facts are wrong" but denial as in "these employees were never convicted of animal cruelty, no dead animals were late night dumped in grocery store dumpsters and there never was a Late Show in which we were exposed."
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com