• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Platform Principles of the Deep Ecology Movement

ChezC3

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Platform Principles of the Deep Ecology Movement

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realizations of these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation to directly or indirectly try to implement the necessary changes.
Click to expand...

Just to get a feel for public sentiment -- How many agree with the above in whole or in part? Which do you agree or disagree with and why?

I believe that this is going to go along partisan lines, the Left being on-board while the Right ca-ca-pooing. Not necessarily, but odds are...

I myself take issue with #4. The rest I can get behind. The vagueness (purposeful I believe) of #4 no doubt gives the justification many need and use to condone or promote abortion. Which if you know me, you know I don't play that ****...

As I said, sentiment and perspective...your thoughts?
 
How many people would be starved to death or otherwise got rid of to achieve this Maoist objective of insanity?
 
None.
 
ChezC3 said:
1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in
themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent
of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
Click to expand...
How broad is usefulness? We like to have a few places where raw nature rules.
And in general, we do.

ChezC3 said:
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realizations of these values
and are also values in themselves.
Click to expand...
Sort of the same thing as #1

ChezC3 said:
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy
vital human needs.
Click to expand...
How narrow is vital needs? Does this mean people have no right to mow their lawns?

ChezC3 said:
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial
decrease of human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a
decrease.
Click to expand...
Only someone who's been totally brainwashed will agree with this.

ChezC3 said:
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the
situation is rapidly worsening.
Click to expand...
Says who? Pretty broad assertion.

ChezC3 said:
6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic,
technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will
be deeply different from the present.
Click to expand...
This speaks to #5 above. We always change policies to fit the current situation,
and it's a matter of debate of what they are and who decides what they are and
for what purpose. It's why we have a representative government in most places.

ChezC3 said:
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling
in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher
standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between
big and great.
Click to expand...
People with a higher standard of living are the ones most likely to consider all
those lofty save the whales etc. policies as worthwhile. People who spend more
time scratching out a living don't care. I am reminded of the older lady at our
local warehouse food joint who says, "Paper or plastic?" I said, "Plastic, let's
save a tree today." Without skipping a beat she said, "I don't believe in that crap!"

ChezC3 said:
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation to directly or
indirectly try to implement the necessary changes.
Click to expand...
I have a lot of obligations, and subscribing to some group's interpretation of
how green things must isn't high on my list.

This list is put together by an ideology that wants to control people's lives.
An ideology that is largely inflexible and single issue. An ideology that does
not put human welfare first. Well, except for their own.
 
ChezC3 said:
Just to get a feel for public sentiment -- How many agree with the above in whole or in part? Which do you agree or disagree with and why?

I believe that this is going to go along partisan lines, the Left being on-board while the Right ca-ca-pooing. Not necessarily, but odds are...

I myself take issue with #4. The rest I can get behind. The vagueness (purposeful I believe) of #4 no doubt gives the justification many need and use to condone or promote abortion. Which if you know me, you know I don't play that ****...

As I said, sentiment and perspective...your thoughts?
Click to expand...

It's not the end result, but the means for getting there that I have an issue with. I've worked in the wood products industry pretty much my whole adult life. I've seen what happens when people like these decide that they know what's best for others, using the kind of goals listed in the OP. I've watched thriving communities dry up, education funding get gutted, massive areas of forest end up on fire for no good reason, the loss of habitat, the ever-increasing diseases destroying our forests. All done by people who think that their goals are worth too much to take into account the cost of achieving them. The gutting of our timber industry has done more damage to our forests than the worst of the timber cos. ever did. We now have over-grown and disease ridden stands that are firetraps and little in the way of resources to stop them. When we were using good timber management practices, we had trained professionals available to fight fires at the drop of a hat (signing a FS timber contract meant that you agreed to fight a fire if it broke out). We had forests that were healthy and thriving and were kept that way. We had funds pouring into rural schools from the proceeds of timber sales. We had whole towns built around planting trees (Oakridge, OR). Small towns across the nation had good paying jobs in mills and the woods. All that came crashing to halt due to people trying to attain the kind of goals listed in the OP with NO consideration for the results of the tactics used to accomplish them.
 
faithful_servant said:
It's not the end result, but the means for getting there that I have an issue with. I've worked in the wood products industry pretty much my whole adult life. I've seen what happens when people like these decide that they know what's best for others, using the kind of goals listed in the OP. I've watched thriving communities dry up, education funding get gutted, massive areas of forest end up on fire for no good reason, the loss of habitat, the ever-increasing diseases destroying our forests. All done by people who think that their goals are worth too much to take into account the cost of achieving them. The gutting of our timber industry has done more damage to our forests than the worst of the timber cos. ever did. We now have over-grown and disease ridden stands that are firetraps and little in the way of resources to stop them. When we were using good timber management practices, we had trained professionals available to fight fires at the drop of a hat (signing a FS timber contract meant that you agreed to fight a fire if it broke out). We had forests that were healthy and thriving and were kept that way. We had funds pouring into rural schools from the proceeds of timber sales. We had whole towns built around planting trees (Oakridge, OR). Small towns across the nation had good paying jobs in mills and the woods. All that came crashing to halt due to people trying to attain the kind of goals listed in the OP with NO consideration for the results of the tactics used to accomplish them.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it is the implementation of said goals and not the actual goals themselves that are the problem. To point to your example, I would say that I am all for healthy forest management that's main purpose is management, not profit. (Meaning: Allowing the profit principle to override conservation) No more should we be cutting for cutting's sake than we should allow an over-growth that creates hazards and yes, destroys industry.
 
ChezC3 said:
I agree with you that it is the implementation of said goals and not the actual goals themselves that are the problem. To point to your example, I would say that I am all for healthy forest management that's main purpose is management, not profit. (Meaning: Allowing the profit principle to override conservation) No more should we be cutting for cutting's sake than we should allow an over-growth that creates hazards and yes, destroys industry.
Click to expand...

Intelligent forest management can produce healthy forest and good profits. The problem is that there are people out there making decisions about how to manage our forests that can't conceive of that idea. All they see is profits OR healthy forests. They have no place in their paradigm to even consider that both can be accomplished. A lot of the problem stems from ignorance of what good forest management means. With complete respect, if you'd care to part of an example, tell me what you think of when I say "clear cut"...
 
ChezC3 said:
I agree with you that it is the implementation of said goals and not the actual goals themselves that are the problem. To point to your example, I would say that I am all for healthy forest management that's main purpose is management, not profit. (Meaning: Allowing the profit principle to override conservation) No more should we be cutting for cutting's sake than we should allow an over-growth that creates hazards and yes, destroys industry.
Click to expand...

Your Maoist mind set is showing. Only profit makes it all work.
 
faithful_servant said:
It's not the end result, but the means for getting there that I have an issue with. I've worked in the wood products industry pretty much my whole adult life. I've seen what happens when people like these decide that they know what's best for others, using the kind of goals listed in the OP. I've watched thriving communities dry up, education funding get gutted, massive areas of forest end up on fire for no good reason, the loss of habitat, the ever-increasing diseases destroying our forests. All done by people who think that their goals are worth too much to take into account the cost of achieving them. The gutting of our timber industry has done more damage to our forests than the worst of the timber cos. ever did. We now have over-grown and disease ridden stands that are firetraps and little in the way of resources to stop them. When we were using good timber management practices, we had trained professionals available to fight fires at the drop of a hat (signing a FS timber contract meant that you agreed to fight a fire if it broke out). We had forests that were healthy and thriving and were kept that way. We had funds pouring into rural schools from the proceeds of timber sales. We had whole towns built around planting trees (Oakridge, OR). Small towns across the nation had good paying jobs in mills and the woods. All that came crashing to halt due to people trying to attain the kind of goals listed in the OP with NO consideration for the results of the tactics used to accomplish them.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiments and only questioning the FS timber contract stipulation that if a fire breaks out one has to fight it.

My limited understanding of this is that not all fire is bad in a forest, that small periodic fires are actually good for the necessary regular cleaning out the over-abundance of underbrush and the dead wood so that when it eventually becomes all very dry and the inevitable fire does start that it does not turn into a massive conflagration, a roaring huge burning inferno destroying everything in its path.
 
faithful_servant said:
Intelligent forest management can produce healthy forest and good profits. The problem is that there are people out there making decisions about how to manage our forests that can't conceive of that idea. All they see is profits OR healthy forests. They have no place in their paradigm to even consider that both can be accomplished. A lot of the problem stems from ignorance of what good forest management means. With complete respect, if you'd care to part of an example, tell me what you think of when I say "clear cut"...
Click to expand...

I think "water" and "soil". I also think of "light" and "diversity".

I believe that we are very close to thinking along the same line. You look at it from the logger's perspective, me from a person genuinely concerned about the environment. I know there are types, types that you're alluding to, types that subscribe to the platform I've presented, types who'd love more than anything to arm the EPA with every legal tool available to kill the industries supported by logging. I'm not one of those types. Neither am I the type that think that "because that's the way we've always done it and it ain't proven to be that bad" is an acceptable position. There is so much tech & science out there now, and waiting to be developed that cost points can be brought down, people can be retrained, resources can be saved, and profits can be made.

What also needs to be commented on seriously though isn't simply the paradigm of "profits or forests" but profits or ecosystems. There is wildlife from Jimmeny cricket, woody woodpecker, bambi, thumper, pooh bear, and more that live, eat, and find cover amongst those trees. No eminent domain check is cut for them? They've got to be taken into consideration.

Again, I'm all for responsible management. I'm all for eking out a buck. Don't want no one not able to put food on their table because we've got to let Woodsy Owl keep his childhood home.

I'm saying that cost and innovation usually goes hand and hand. The powers that be don't want to incur the former so they stubbornly refuse to invest in the latter.

Which is what gets patchouli stanking tree hungers spiking and chaining and their brethren working there damnedest to get the very dumb asses you speak off elected into office to place so many regulations on the industry that they guarantee innovation won't see the light of day and the industry not see tomorrow.
 
ChezC3 said:
Just to get a feel for public sentiment -- How many agree with the above in whole or in part? Which do you agree or disagree with and why?

I believe that this is going to go along partisan lines, the Left being on-board while the Right ca-ca-pooing. Not necessarily, but odds are...

I myself take issue with #4. The rest I can get behind. The vagueness (purposeful I believe) of #4 no doubt gives the justification many need and use to condone or promote abortion. Which if you know me, you know I don't play that ****...

As I said, sentiment and perspective...your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with 1. to 5. It is from 6. which talks about policy change that problems arise. Sensible ecological concerns can descend into cult like lunacy among the true believers.

Example: The construction of the bridge between Denmark and Sweden was delayed by fears about the impact on fresh water mussels over - from memory - an area of a couple of hundred acres or so. A species abundant over long part of the two countries coastlines. Agonising over insignificant matters is the mark of religious fervour, not reasonable concern.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I agree with your sentiments and only questioning the FS timber contract stipulation that if a fire breaks out one has to fight it.
Click to expand...
Been there, done that. IT's part of the contract. If you're working your sale and fire breaks out, you get to help fight it. We did get paid (VERY WELL), but that was part of the contract.
 
ChezC3 said:
Just to get a feel for public sentiment -- How many agree with the above in whole or in part? Which do you agree or disagree with and why?

I believe that this is going to go along partisan lines, the Left being on-board while the Right ca-ca-pooing. Not necessarily, but odds are...

I myself take issue with #4. The rest I can get behind. The vagueness (purposeful I believe) of #4 no doubt gives the justification many need and use to condone or promote abortion. Which if you know me, you know I don't play that ****...

As I said, sentiment and perspective...your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I don't care for any of it. Grand overarching prescriptions for management of mankind are the stuff that dystopias are made of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom