NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone else find that the Greenpeace and similar environmentalist movements have gone way too agressive, politicized and anti-humanist?

Consider the Greenpeace's modus operandi, in their own words (emphasis mine):

Our mission

Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation that uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace's goal is to ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in all its diversity.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/faq/view-q-and-a?category_id=4396&faq_id=13956

In other words, their goal is confrontation. They consider themselves to be at war and describe their actions as "fighting battles against polluters". They are opposed to industry, fishing, logging, energy production, mineral mining- virtually to any form of technology and technological development. In fact, if we take their view to its logical conclusion, nothing short of a return to the stone age tribal society will save Mother Nature from the "plague" and "cancer" that is the human race. In their warped perception, nature is always good, humans never are.

Below I am quoting a former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore

The Rise of Eco-Extremism

Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or "liberal" approach to ecology and the new "zero-tolerance" attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former "enemies" or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of "sustainable development" and took a strong "anti-development" stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:

· It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a "cancer" on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be "good" if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.

· It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and "unnatural'. The Sierra Club's recent book, "Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry", is an excellent example of this perspective. "Western industrial society" is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word "Nature" is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to "find our place" in the world through "shamanic journeying" and "swaying with the trees". Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.

· It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no "allegiance" to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?

· It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to "free trade" but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each "bioregion" should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it's too cold to grow bananas - - too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.

· It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike "competition" and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.

· It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too "human-centered". In the name of "speaking for the trees and other species" we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The "planetary police" would "answer to no one but Mother Earth herself".

· It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.

http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3



Is this really the way to go?

Well, if they truely are Anti-Human, pass them a link to the Church of Euthanasia. Problem solved.

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

Everyone knows Greenpeace eats babies. :roll:

Everyone knows Greenpeace eats babies. :roll:And they watch a lot of Mary Kate & Ashley 'Made for Video' movies.

If they like nature so much, why do they winge when I throw them to the dingoes? :? :wink:

Everyone knows Greenpeace eats babies. :roll:
What a resourceful contribution to the thread :roll: Got anything productive to say?

Everyone knows Greenpeace eats babies. :roll:
What a resourceful contribution to the thread :roll: Got anything productive to say?

What could be said about Greenpeace that hasn't been gargled by a drowning turkey in the rain? It's a bunch of old men trying to make up for their crappy lives and hippies who "support the enviroment" while tripping off of thirteen drugs they grew themselves. Everyone buys into the enviromental cause, because they feel like traitors if they actually thought about what they were saying.

Does anyone else find that the Greenpeace and similar environmentalist movements have gone way too agressive, politicized and anti-humanist?

Consider the Greenpeace's modus operandi, in their own words (emphasis mine):

Our mission
Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation that uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace's goal is to ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in all its diversity.

In other words, their goal is confrontation. They consider themselves to be at war and describe their actions as "fighting battles against polluters". They are opposed to industry, fishing, logging, energy production, mineral mining- virtually to any form of technology and technological development. In fact, if we take their view to its logical conclusion, nothing short of a return to the stone age tribal society will save Mother Nature from the "plague" and "cancer" that is the human race. In their warped perception, nature is always good, humans never are.

Below I am quoting a former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore

Is this really the way to go?

Womblingdon, is this a joke? Seriously now, is this humor? You take part of the Greenpeace mission statement that SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS non-violent behaviour. You then tell us they have declared war. Those are fundementally different things (Non-violence and war), you do realize that don't you?

You then splice in a co-founders message that talks about the fight within the enviornmentalist community to keep things rational...And ask us if the enviornmentalist movement ITSELF is rational based on the wakos that reside within their community.

You talk about one thing as if it the other. That's like asking if Pro-life activists are the way to go because 1 freak posts a hit-list on his website that happens to espouse Anti-abortion idealogy. Tiny, radical fringe groups do not a Greenpeace make.

What on earth is the point of your little excersize? Is it to test if our IQs are above room temprature? I can assure you precious few people would be taken in by such a deeply flawed argument. Its tissue-thin for goodness sakes!

Wheas, of course, those who seek to exploit the environment without any consideration of the impact of their actions, or any thought for the future, driven purely by short-term profit, really have everyone else's well-being in mind I suppose?
:roll:

That is bullshit. Nothing but extreme right agiprop aimed to potray anyone who strays from their fascist adgenda as a 'terr'ist' :roll:

Does anyone else find that the Greenpeace and similar environmentalist movements have gone way too agressive, politicized and anti-humanist?

Consider the Greenpeace's modus operandi, in their own words (emphasis mine):

Our mission
Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation that uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace's goal is to ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in all its diversity.

In other words, their goal is confrontation. They consider themselves to be at war and describe their actions as "fighting battles against polluters". They are opposed to industry, fishing, logging, energy production, mineral mining- virtually to any form of technology and technological development. In fact, if we take their view to its logical conclusion, nothing short of a return to the stone age tribal society will save Mother Nature from the "plague" and "cancer" that is the human race. In their warped perception, nature is always good, humans never are.

Below I am quoting a former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore

Is this really the way to go?

Womblingdon, is this a joke? Seriously now, is this humor? You take part of the Greenpeace mission statement that SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS non-violent behaviour. You then tell us they have declared war. Those are fundementally different things (Non-violence and war), you do realize that don't you?
I do. They are waging their "war" through suposedly non-violent means dubbed "civil disobedience", causing a fair bit of economic damage to targeted businesses- which doesn't change the fact that their attitude is confrontational rather than cooperational, their rhetorics are war rhetorics, and their attitude is that of no compromise.


You then splice in a co-founders message that talks about the fight within the enviornmentalist community to keep things rational...And ask us if the enviornmentalist movement ITSELF is rational based on the wakos that reside within their community.

You talk about one thing as if it the other. That's like asking if Pro-life activists are the way to go because 1 freak posts a hit-list on his website that happens to espouse Anti-abortion idealogy. Tiny, radical fringe groups do not a Greenpeace make.

I take it you are not familiar with the background. Moore is definitely talking about Greenpeace here. In this text he explains the reasons why he was forced to leave Greenpeace and establish his own organization, the Greenspirit (www.greenspirit.com). Here is the previous chapter of the same text:

Collaboration versus Confrontation

It was no coincidence that the round-table, consensus-based negotiation process was adopted by thousands of environmental leaders. It is the logical tool for working in the new spirit of green cooperation. It may not be a perfect system for decision-making, but like Churchill said about democracy, "It's the worst form of government except for all the others". A collaborative approach promises to give environmental issues their fair consideration in relation to the traditional economic and social priorities.
Some environmentalists didn't see it that way. Indeed, there had always been a minority of extremists who took a "No Compromise in Defense of Mother Nature" position. They were the monkey-wrenchers, tree-spikers and boat scuttlers of the Earth First! and Paul Watson variety. Considered totally uncool by the largely pacifist, intellectual mainstream of the movement, they were a colorful but renegade element.

Since its founding in the late 60's the modern environmental movement had created a vision that was international in scope and had room for people of all political persuasions. We prided ourselves in subscribing to a philosophy that was "trans-political, trans-ideological, and trans-national" in character. For Greenpeace, the Cree legend "Warriors of the Rainbow" referred to people of all colors and creeds, working together for a greener planet. The traditional sharp division between left and right was rendered meaningless by the common desire to protect our life support systems. Violence against people and property were the only taboos. Non-violent direct action and peaceful civil disobedience were the hallmarks of the movement. Truth mattered and science was respected for the knowledge it brought to the debate.

Now this broad-based vision is challenged by a new philosophy of radical environmentalism. In the name of "deep ecology" many environmentalists have taken a sharp turn to the ultra-left, ushering in a mood of extremism and intolerance. As a clear signal of this new agenda, in 1990 Greenpeace called for a "grassroots revolution against pragmatism and compromise".

As an environmentalist in the political center I now find myself branded a traitor and a sellout by this new breed of saviors. My name appears in Greenpeace's "Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations". Even fellow Greenpeace founder and campaign comrade, Bob Hunter, refers to me as the "eco-Judas". Yes, I am trying to help the Canadian forest industry improve its performance so we might be proud of it again. As chair of the Forest Practices Committee of the Forest Alliance of B.C. I have lead the process of drafting and implementing the Principles of Sustainable Forestry that have been adopted by a majority of the industry. These Principles establish goals for environmental protection, forest management and public involvement. They are providing a framework for dialogue and action towards improvements in forest proactices. Why shouldn't I make a contribution to environmental reform in the industry my grandfather and father have worked in for over 90 years?

It's not that I don't think the environment is in deep trouble. The hole in the ozone is real and we are overpopulating and overexploiting many of the earth's most productive ecosystems. I believe this is all the more reason to hang on to ideas like freedom, democracy, internationalism, and one-human-family. Our species is probably in for a pretty rough ride during the coming decades. It would be nice to think we could maintain a semblance of civilization while we work through these difficult times.

Does anyone really believe that those gaining profit from exploiting and destroying the environment are going to stop without some form of confrontation?

They have shown no inclination to do so.

If confrontation is required, so be it.

I do. They are waging their "war" through suposedly non-violent means dubbed "civil disobedience", causing a fair bit of economic damage to targeted businesses- which doesn't change the fact that their attitude is confrontational rather than cooperational, their rhetorics are war rhetorics, and their attitude is that of no compromise.

I take it you are not familiar with the background. Moore is definitely talking about Greenpeace here. In this text he explains the reasons why he was forced to leave Greenpeace and establish his own organization, the Greenspirit (www.greenspirit.com). Here is the previous chapter of the same text:

Well, I must apologize for jumping the gun then. I saw nothing on Greenpeace's site to indicate such practices or opinions in my 10 minute overview of the site. Similarly I could only read about half of the pages on the Greensprit site (some of the pages were "cannot find server") when I went there as well. Still, my lack of research aside, I shouldn't have jumped on ya like that.

Still in all, I must argue that even war-rhetoric itself should not be viewed as "bad" by itself. Greenpeace has an agenda that sometimes means putting massive economic damage on companies that it brands as "irresponsible" towards the enviornment. That in itself should not be viewed as anything other than a protest movement that should be carefully looked at by all concerned.

I ask you then, has Greenpeace actually condoned anything violent? If that was the case I would certainly agree that they've crossed a line.

Their no-compromise policy could be explained as an exasperated stance taken again companies that frequently back out on deals. I have seen some rants from the enviormentalist community that support this theory (ie corperations saying one thing and doing another). Have you seen anything resembling this trend?

I am reminded in this of Coca-Cola in India, having a huge plant there that they claimed (publicized, in fact) was eco-friendly in the extreme. Turns out, nothing could be further from the truth. Many of their programs, such as taking "sludge" from the plant and making it into fertalizer were bogus, they were dumping toxic waste on farmers lands and paying them tiny sums to keep quiet.

Now I don't mean to single out Coke as a bad company here, but I've seen much in the way of both sides of the Enviormentalist spectrum get more polarized lately because of a severe lack of trust from both parties.

I'm really not sure what Greenpeace is at war with but overall, its integrity as well as truth and sensibility are the main casualties of war.

Over civilisation will devastate the planet.

Under civilisation will inhibit development

SUSTAINABLE CIVILISATION is the best thing ever. That would briefly be enough resources available for all on the planet and still have these resources 1000 years from now.

Greenpeace are fine. At least in the Uk...

It's the old question: the ballot or the bullet?

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/malcolmxballot.htm

If they like nature so much, why do they winge when I throw them to the dingoes? :? :wink:

So, why do you hate dingoes? What harm have the poor things ever done to you?? :)

If they like nature so much, why do they winge when I throw them to the dingoes? :? :wink:

So, why do you hate dingoes? What harm have the poor things ever done to you?? :)

Nothing. I just hate environmentalists, and I like dingoes. So I feel it's only right to feed the dingoes the environmentalists.

Choke on your own excerment if you want, just don't do it on my planet.

Well put it this way.

What is the greatest motivator of development and change in the world?

Confrontation.

Without confrontation, their is no real change.

First things first - My god I am actually on a forum where people argue points with too much name calling!! (Ok a bit here and there's always worth it).
Anyway about Greenpeace - To be honest I almost feel let down by them. A pressure group of such a size as Greenpeace sholud be able to make real differences and actually work with (when nessessary) governments and businesses etc to actually come up with a sustainable future. However instead of this Greenpeace seems to have adopted the 'act now' reactionary political view. How many times has one of these great confrontations actually done more harm than good? - The sinking of the shell oil rig anyone - Environmentally has caused MORE damage to cut it up than sink it! I really would like to support them but how can I? They are going after EVERYTHING that will add discomfort back into peoples lives and seem quite content to not both with local issues that people will actually support them on. If in my local area (Lancashire, England) we had a greenpeace representative campaigning about the new housing development that is being planned that is not needed and will cut a path though some of the most stunning countryside in Britain (and we got little enough of that left) then I would support them. Instead we have people camped outside the nuclear power station - where nothing will change as it is a nessessary evil!

Steve

I'm thinking about writing a novel about what life would be like in an environmentalist dystopia.

I hardly think that Greenpeace are in a war against civilisation. Yeah, so they use direct action...so what. They don't want to get rid of the civilised world they just want to make it nicer to nature.

What's bad about?

For obvious reasons I won't comment on the opening post of this thread, just wanted to present a rather interesting article about greenpeace (http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Greenpeace/ge-ar-gr.htm).

The point in confrontation is that it gets people's attention, which is one of Greenpeace's main goals.

The point in confrontation is that it gets people's attention, which is one of Greenpeace's main goals.
Rather than actually solve the problem?

The argument presented against Greenpeace contradicts itself. First it says they're Communist, then it says they're anarchists. Which is it? Of course, it goes on to state that both of those are bad, but that's neither here nor there.
I do have to disagree with their claim that they're non-violent, though. Violence against property is nonetheless violent. This is different than civil disobedience, which has been perhaps the biggest catalyst of social change of the 20th century.
Lastly, Womblingdon, you say that Greenpeace's tactics don't solve the problem. How do you propose to solve the problem?

How many times has one of these great confrontations actually done more harm than good? - The sinking of the shell oil rig anyone - Environmentally has caused MORE damage to cut it up than sink it!

Ah yes. The Shell rig. Shall we remind them?

The Brent Spar

In 1995, Shell Oil was granted permission by the British Environment Ministry to dispose of the oil rig "Brent Spar" in deep water in the North Sea. Greenpeace immediately accused Shell of using the sea as a "dustbin". Greenpeace campaigners maintained that there were hundreds of tonnes of petroleum wastes on board the Brent Spar and that some of these were radioactive. They organized a consumer boycott of Shell service stations, costing the company millions in sales. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl denounced the British government’s decision to allow the dumping. Caught completely off guard, Shell ordered the tug that was already towing the rig to its burial site to turn back. They then announced they had abandoned the plan for deep-sea disposal. This angered British Prime Minister, John Major.

Independent investigation revealed that the rig had been properly cleaned and did not contain the toxic and radioactive waste claimed by Greenpeace. Greenpeace wrote to Shell apologizing for the factual error. But they did not change their position on deep-sea disposal despite the fact that on-land disposal will cause far greater environmental impact.

.
Lastly, Womblingdon, you say that Greenpeace's tactics don't solve the problem. How do you propose to solve the problem?
Sustainable development. Balancing logging and reforestation, for example, so we could use wood to replace artificial non-renewable materials, yet keep the forests at a reasonably big size. I am pretty much with Greenspirit on this.

greenpeace = bunch of liberals whose shocking and violent confrontations involve such radical tactics as lock-downs to block roads and banner drops.

bah, reformists.

song for the elf (http://fileserv5.soundclick.com/fastg6%5CVIPD/davidrovics+songfortheelf.mp3)

I would be most appreciative If someone coul track down that Famous onion JPEG regarding the ELF.

While some environmentalists can take things too far (I don't know which ones do) it is important that we take care of the environment.
I don't think we should have a world in which our children come back from school, take off their gas masks, and say, "why were our ancestors such dicks?"

If they are fighting a war, then why aren't the Greenwar?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

They are waging war against civilization. I describe myself as an environmentalist, but only in the traditional views, such as whale-saving, cutting back on pollution, etc. However, humans, human progress, and the economy do not play second fiddle to the environment so far as I'm concerned. Greenpeace and other groups make us "moderate" environmentalists feel bad, and gives a bad rap to the entire environmentalist movement. That's why I applaud that Danish environmentalist (forgot the name), who's returning the environmental movement to common sense.

http://www.poorschmuck.net/archives/image_article1313_418x445.68803418803.jpg

You cant have a compromise between Business and the environment. They are mutually exclusive. That is the sorry truth. And no Euclid. He is not bringing sense back to the Environmentalist movement. He's not even a bioologist or anything to do with the Environment. He is a statisition and he's had his day in the sun.

.
Lastly, Womblingdon, you say that Greenpeace's tactics don't solve the problem. How do you propose to solve the problem?
Sustainable development. Balancing logging and reforestation, for example, so we could use wood to replace artificial non-renewable materials, yet keep the forests at a reasonably big size. I am pretty much with Greenspirit on this.

So-called "Re-forestation" is a joke.

When we log an old-growth forest, we destroy a whole eco-system which took hundreds or thousands of years to grow and which contains hundreds of different life species. Much of this biological diversity depends upon many trees naturally growing old and decomposing to feed new life.

When we "re-forest" the devasted area with, say, a mere 1-to-3 types of trees of the same age - all we're left with is a biologically near-sterile *tree farm*.

The logging industry would have us believe that such a "re-forested" tree farm is an acceptable replacement for an ancient forest. That is a blatant lie, pure & simple.

Ah, The Onion. :wink:

The argument presented against Greenpeace contradicts itself. First it says they're Communist, then it says they're anarchists. Which is it? Of course, it goes on to state that both of those are bad, but that's neither here nor there.
I do have to disagree with their claim that they're non-violent, though. Violence against property is nonetheless violent. This is different than civil disobedience, which has been perhaps the biggest catalyst of social change of the 20th century.
Lastly, Womblingdon, you say that Greenpeace's tactics don't solve the problem. How do you propose to solve the problem?

Most anarchists are also communists.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

.
Lastly, Womblingdon, you say that Greenpeace's tactics don't solve the problem. How do you propose to solve the problem?
Sustainable development. Balancing logging and reforestation, for example, so we could use wood to replace artificial non-renewable materials, yet keep the forests at a reasonably big size. I am pretty much with Greenspirit on this.

So-called "Re-forestation" is a joke.

When we log an old-growth forest, we destroy a whole eco-system which took hundreds or thousands of years to grow and which contains hundreds of different life species. Much of this biological diversity depends upon many trees naturally growing old and decomposing to feed new life.

When we "re-forest" the devasted area with, say, a mere 1-to-3 types of trees of the same age - all we're left with is a biologically near-sterile *tree farm*.

The logging industry would have us believe that such a "re-forested" tree farm is an acceptable replacement for an ancient forest. That is a blatant lie, pure & simple.
Of course not. You clearly didn't understand the concept. It isn't about clearing out the whole of the forest and then planting it anew like a garden, but about dividing it into areas for logging and reforesting.

Quoting Moore again:

There is a reason why forestry seldom, if ever, causes species to become extinct. We tend to think that forests need our help to recover after destruction, whether by fire or logging. Of course this is not the case. Forests have been recovering by themselves, without any assistance, from fires, volcanoes, landslides, floods and ice ages, ever since forests began over 350 million years ago. Consider the fact that 10,000 years ago all of Canada and Russia were covered by a huge sheet of ice under which nothing lived, certainly not trees. Today, Canada and Russia account for 30 percent of all the forests on earth, grown back from bare rock. Go to Alaska where the glaciers are retreating due to the present warming trend, and you will see that from the moment the rocks are laid bare to the sun, it is only 80 years until a thriving new ecosystem is growing there, including young trees.

It follows from this that every species which lives in the forest must be capable of re-colonizing areas of land that are recovering from destruction. Indeed, forest renewal is the sum total of all the individual species returning to the site, each in their turn, as the forest grows back. In ecology, this is known as dispersal, the ability to move from where you are and to inhabit new territory as it becomes available. In humans, we call this migration, but it is the same thing. Dispersal is an absolute requirement for natural selection and the survival of species. No species could exist if it were not capable of dispersal. Therefore, so long as the land is left alone after the forest is destroyed, the forest will recover and all the species that were in it will return.

Fire has always been the main cause of forest destruction, or disturbance, as ecologists like to call it in order to use a more neutral term. But fire is natural, we are told, and does not destroy the forest ecosystem like logging, which is unnatural. Nature never comes with logging trucks and takes the trees away. All kinds of rhetoric is used to give the impression that logging is somehow fundamentally different from other forms of forest disturbance. There is no truth to this. It is true that logging is different from fire, but fire is also very different from a volcano, which in turn is very different from an ice age. In fact, no two fires are ever the same. These are differences of degree, not kind. Forests are just as capable of recovering from destruction by logging as they are from any other form of disturbance. All that is necessary for renewal is that the disturbance is ended, that the fire is out, that the volcano stops erupting, that the ice retreats, or that the loggers go back down the road and allow the forest to begin growing back, which it will begin to do almost immediately.

Didn't the Bush Administration want to go after Greenpeace awhile ago?

I personally dont see Greenpeace as particularly extremist. In fact to me they are quite mainstream although undoubtedly they have membership in common with some more radical fringe groups - thinking of Earth First here. Regardless, the benefit of having representation of the extremist persopective is that it forces the issue into public discourse and moderates the activity of other actors. The shell oil platform is a good example of this. The benefits of land based disposal vs sinking are debateable but environmental activism forced Shell into conceding that the ocean is not their private and exclusive domain but a public space in which everyone hads an intereset.

I hardly think that Greenpeace are in a war against civilisation. Yeah, so they use direct action...so what. They don't want to get rid of the civilised world they just want to make it nicer to nature.

What's bad about?

What's bad about it is that they are forcing people to do things they don't want to do, via government.

Didn't the Bush Administration want to go after Greenpeace awhile ago?

yeah, cause they're a dirty bunch of sailor mongerers

Didn't the Bush Administration want to go after Greenpeace awhile ago?

They are.

And womblingdon that is so fucking weak. If this guy wrote then that Then I know he is of questionable Credibility. Its not difficult to know the difference between new and old growth forests.

Didn't the Bush Administration want to go after Greenpeace awhile ago?

They are.

And womblingdon that is so f--- weak. If this guy wrote then that Then I know he is of questionable Credibility. Its not difficult to know the difference between new and old growth forests.
His point was that logging doesn't do any unique kind of damage that natural disasters like forest fires don't do. And the guy who is of "questionable credibility" is one of Greenpeace's founding fathers, after all. His credibility is at least equal to theirs.

I havnt read any thing the other founders have wrote. But It makes little difference. Any change in an ecosystem either makes it more or less difficult for animals to survive. I think trees is a postive factor for survival, dont you?

But either way I wouldnt care what any of them wrote. I dont see Environmentalism and the Environment in general as one and the same.

His point was that logging doesn't do any unique kind of damage that natural disasters like forest fires don't do.

Except floods.

The point in confrontation is that it gets people's attention, which is one of Greenpeace's main goals.
Rather than actually solve the problem?

Perhaps they don't have the resources to solve the problem? :roll:

-Getting people's attention=attracting members=attracting money
-Getting people's attention=getting in the media=pressing the government to solve a problem/pressing the industry to solve a problem