Efficient use of natural resources

[Nicu]

Having a will to efficiently use the natural resources is the right thing to do in the frames of Nietzschenean value judgements?

[Onasander]

stands dressed in black, in the middle of a national park with a FUCK OBAMA shit on, holding a barrel of crude oil under each arm with the caps open, draining them...... pausing to ponder the great question proposed while pissing on a endangered newt.

[perpetualburn52]

Well Nietzsche does say in Zarathustra, "Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died,
and therewith also those blasphemers. To blaspheme the earth is now
the dreadfulest sin"

Yet he says elsewhere, "'To play the great play — to stake the existence of humanity, in order perhaps to attain something higher than the survival of the race."

Of course he's not staking the existence of the earth in the last quote.

I think it depends on the goal... why are natural resources being exploited and for what purpose.

As long as humanity's potential(in so far as it needs to exploit resources) does not interfere with the health of the earth, then I think you're ok(as far as resource management goes...either conserving or using too much).... To further elaborate... Nietzsche would not be about stifling a higher culture(and if conserving resources stifles culture then it's not "good"(value judgement).... What's crucial I think, is that the higher culture he envisions ultimately rests on the naturalization of man and his renewed role with the life giving properties of the earth... So maybe what it comes down to is the "pace" at which natural resources are exploited and how this affects culture.

"When will all these shadows of God cease to obscure us? When shall we have nature entirely undeified? When shall we be permitted to naturalize ourselves by means of the pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature?"(Gay Science 109).

[Onasander]

Nietzsche lived in the era when the electric wand and battery was the cutting edge of technology, and mines could only go as deep as the timber that could vault the roofs. Industrial waste at best involved small amounts of oil, and whaling was booming. Nations were booming, rail was being laid, rapid fire machine guns were in their infancy. He hadn't the slightest clue what was coming.

This being said, this environmental concern is mostly a product of the decades of his commotose state to the depression- Du Pont and other corporations dumped weird, never before seen chemicals into waterways, massive deforestation took place, heavy mining equipment and TNT came into regular practice, and the reemergence of siege warfare utilizing every square inch of a battlefield using trench and barbed wire came back into style.

This being said- it's appearing that the movement is at it's ebb, given that global warming is increasingly being shown to be a product of the new academic religion and not based whatsoever in fact. We have had extensive codes and laws in place, and the furthering of it without a reciprocal and preceding industrial-technological leap just makes it look like a powergrab by a increasingly tyrannically government, and it's supportive cliques, seeking to claim full and total control over the populace.

I suspect after a massive political battle, the ebb away from environmentalism is going to be enshrined, and that will remain the case for several years. It's sad to see so many intellectual bastards infest our universities pushing their cultic beliefs beyond the competency of it's original base. It makes efforts by those really seeking to ensure environmental health in bad circumstances much harder, because the populace can't readily discriminate one categorical declaration of warning from others who have a tradition of self righteously crying wolf. It's as pathetic, and potentially as fatal, of a crime as crying fire in a crowded movie theater not actually on fire. Why I no longer listen to any environmentalism coming out of California or green party activist anymore..... they are no longer trustworthy as a source- and if they push it, I will drown the newts in piss and oil as punishment everytime they pull something.

[perpetualburn52]

given that global warming is increasingly being shown to be a product of the new academic religion and not based whatsoever in fact.

Scientific consensus would say otherwise.

because the populace can't readily discriminate one categorical declaration of warning from others who have a tradition of self righteously crying wolf. It's as pathetic, and potentially as fatal, of a crime as crying fire in a crowded movie theater not actually on fire

That right here is the real problem. No one trusts anyone anymore, not even a scientific consensus. Thus people go right on with their environmentally destructive tendencies without guilt.

[Onasander]

who's concensus- sure the hell isn't geologist, it isn't historians looking at the historical record.... at least not claiming it's man made.

We have a bunch of ancient cities under water that a few thousand years ago was on the shore, especially in india- many of the cities mentioned in the upanisads are UNDER water- one they discovered the top of the cities' wall that was sitting on the peninsula was now the shore of the island 30 offshore. It wasn't the shell industry that did that, nor the bronze age smelters who destroyed the environment enough for that to happen. Japan, India, Egypt, Ceylon, and the black sea we have underwater sites of settlement. It wasn't man made effects that sunk them- but there is actually dumbasses out there who think if you recycle, the icecaps will return, and there will be harmony, and the sun god will forgive us for our sins against gaia and not melt anything.

You can say this to the more reasonable of the global warming advocists- and they will say 'at least it's doing something, it's a step in the right direction'- we have ABSOLUTELY NO evidence whatsoever that's the case- if we don't know the causes for global warming, just how is it your assuming cutting carbon emissions is going to do anything? Or furthermore, if it does, your methodology isn't needlessly costly and could be better hit in another way (my farm project for one could knock out a massive hole in any carbon footprint).

It's alchemical voodoo they are engaging in. Now- balance this- what I said above, with the knowledge that I am taking commercial electric classes, and welding all so I can make and install solar panels on houses- I am a very earth friendly man, and do care for the environment.... however, this being said, I don't care one rats ass about this last two generations of shit brained moaning environmentalist- or their religion of the melting sun. Fuck, I think some of those morons think if you recycle plastics, the solar flares will be nice to the satellites.

The highpoint of the environmental movement was ending the dustbowl back in the late 30s. They crewed up all that natural, drought resistant wild grass out on the prairie- and planted wheat- it failed one year during a drought, and the dust rose up, and kept rising for the whole of the depression, eventually turning several states into dune plagued deserts until people who knew how to fix it was brought in to tap the underwater reservoirs, keep everything watered down and seeded once again. The lands healed, and are back into health, instead of being overflooded with millions upon millions of jack rabbits. Environmentalism isn't this othershit- launching dust missiles into orbit to block out the sun or mandating that septic tanks have 21 layers of sand and gravel instead of 15 on a farm where cows shit on the field right next to it. It's using responsible logging so what happened up in greenbay doesn't happen elsewhere with overlogging, not chaining yourself to a tree in the suburbs to protect a woodpecker (what woodpecker doesn't like a screaming dyke chaining herself to it's tree).

A good many of these fucks just make me want to bitch slap their ass for being retarded zealots who manage to do more to harm the environment by turning people off to it than any good. They anger me so much, it isn't funny. It's like the equivalent of a gay person trying to gain acceptance in a workplace, and then seeing the gay pride parade in San Fransisco coming on, with a bunch of fruits dressed in boots, pink shorts, wife beaters, and cowboy hats on....... I can just imagine such a guy seeing that screaming inside nnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!! as his coworkers glance at him.

[perpetualburn52]

You can say this to the more reasonable of the global warming advocists- and they will say 'at least it's doing something, it's a step in the right direction'- we have ABSOLUTELY NO evidence whatsoever that's the case- if we don't know the causes for global warming, just how is it your assuming cutting carbon emissions is going to do anything?

Nevertheless, you must admit that the greenhouse effect only adds to global warming. The thing is we're only making the problem worse with carbon emissions.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... consensus/

various stuff:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp& ... 69f649455e

Let's say we can agree that our current type of development is only making the problem worse(increased global temperatures changing life as we know it)... there's really nothing that can be done at this point, is there(other than to completely collapse the system and move to a more regional sustainable type of development...which isn't going to happen)? Minor adjustments like your conservative logging aren't nearly enough.... chaining yourself to a tree is certainly stupid, and most environmentalism seems to think that these little steps that are "better than doing nothing" mean something.

EDIT: Having said all that, I myself thinking of moving, trying to figure out the cheapest place to buy land and set up a sustainable living situation...that isn't in the middle of nowhere(not really for any environmental concerns as much as not wanting to spend so much money on bills)... land in Mass. is way too expensive.

[Onasander]

Nevertheless, you must admit that the greenhouse effect only adds to global warming. The thing is we're only making the problem worse with carbon emissions.

Hardly conservative- you haven't the slightest clue just how much oxygen my system pumps out, and how cheap it is to do it.

I don't even know if the CO emissions have a effect related to greenhouse emissions. The reason I can say this without bullshitting is because rationality is far more complex that many people assume it is- they assume that since they can rationalize, therefor that is the extent of rationality. It's not the case.

I will give you a example: Take two warring states, sharing borders, have their entire field armies besieging one another's capital city- and they are so entrenched, and so determined to wipe one another out, that they both refuse to yank a single unit from the besieging force against their enemy's city to relieve the siege on their own..... and so they for a long time maintain this equilibrium of force.

A third party enters into the fray, marching on previously scorched earth, until they hit a untouched mountainside, and lay siege to a village of bandits, and plunder them of all of their own plunder, and they continue on- to the next mountain, and do so again, and again, and again, and again. Much life is lost- numbering in the hundreds, and a wagontrain of loot is collected, and they make haste back to their territory.

In time, both besieging forces break in, wipe out the opponent cities, and in their triumphant return, wipe out one another at each other's borders, surprised to encounter one another there. The land for thousands of miles in every direction is scorched, unable to sustain a human population save for a very few endeavoring scavengers, for even the watertables are ruined, and the soil will no longer allow plant's to sprout.

Now- a mathematical assessment will say, this third party force made things worst- they entered into the fray, plundered and murdered a warzone, multiplying the harm. This is incorrect in many ways, for the bandits living on the mountainsides were dependent upon the lowland populations for sustainable via supplies- without a source, the paracites were entering into a famine, and were as good as dead, as they would almost certainly lack the capacity to even evacuate without dying on the way out by thirst or hunger.... much less find a new home as refugees. Furthermore- this sidewar didn't even effect the other war going on one bit- the outcome would be exactly the same in either case- enter or no entry- both states would of wiped one another out.

The rules of relativity do not result in a automatic fluctuation of all values- a explosion in India doesn't effect the weather pattern in New York City that day..... in a thousand years- perhaps, but not immediately. There is a tense patterning.... a measurement of time to effect.... and if one approaches such a analysis, one must measure what is and what isn't- 20th century science is very, very poor in this capacity.... the world's scientist were undertrained, and poorly equipped intellectually as well as materially to be able to discern and discriminate on the needed basis in most fields. I know this because I get the misfortune of seeing all the sciences come together in military tech- and we discover time after time after time alot of the scientific theories simply do not match up one bit with the exacting needs of wartime technology. It's almost as if the theories are independent of the engineering of the tech- which I am increasingly convinced is the case..... the art of invention operates on a different basis intellectually than the art of 'science'- people think the voice in their head is 'I'- the same 'I' in both cases- the same rationality. It's not. They are not trained to recognize this. A few conceptual understandings of what is a fallacy, handed down to them from another, and a handful of formulas, is all they have- their mind mostly unknown to them from a lack of introspective investigation.


Have you ever thought about where the pollution actual goes? Honestly? What layers of the atmosphere does it settle in? We can measure accurately how long what stays where in the atmosphere- airline fumes stays for several decades in layers meters high..... but no one knows what effects it has.... because no one can figure out how to measure it, much less form a competent theory about it. We don't know what is, and what isn't. It just sounds 'good' and 'progressive' for us to say so, because it agrees with the academic religion that was in vogue a few decades before any scientist gave a fuck about global warming. There is a lot of crying wolf going on, and the entire global warming system recently this winter discredited itself. It's a pathetic cult of intellectuals more interested in grant money to keep their artificially inflated industry- that can only exist via crying alarm, running deep in money. They are remarkably loud on cries of despair, and woefully short on solutions that don't resemble the calls for redemtion of Millennialist cults, and to ask forgiveness to the great mother Gaia.


I am not buying it- it screams hoax. It's missing too many fundamentals in terms of thinking that you need in any strategic understanding, and I don't care about the nature or cultural acceptance of authority of those airheads crying it- I am not impressed- for their proofs rub against raw against the authority of other, much more acceptable authorities that they themselves claim as support- such as historians. Very few historians will agree that the link of global temperature has any coincidence to the very recent industrial age. Icecaps will melt- it's been doing that since the neolithic (that's a lot of stone pounding and cave fires to cause the glaciers to melt back)- most of north america and europe melted- and now that we have a few hunded powerplants, we're getting blamed because the Northern Passage is starting to open up! The glacier ice used to be in the lower US 10,000 years ago for Christ sake!

Let's blame the tiny size of small trees as compared to the giant redwood trees on this one too- we can have bewildered scientist taking core samples, wide eyed in the protected forest, then sitting next to a douglas fir in a unprotected plot of land..... talking about the alarming rate of shrinkage that results from trees nt being protected, and how big they can become if we made every tree safe from logging- allowing them to grow as large as redwoods.

We can have a few student protest of self-immolations at the University of Berkley while we're at it in support..... we should only sell pot with pictures of giant redwood trees on the nicklebags to the know-it-all intellectuals so they can feel they're making a change. Ban all wood..... the million man march for stunted trees.

How dare you point out it's irrationality- or how impractical and irresponsible the plan to stop chopping down all trees is you dirty fucking racist, Nazis conservative. You want to chop down trees, kill black people, and stomp on the poor, you represent everything that is wrong with the world- and if we can just manage to get rid of you- and your unwillingness to join a political party such as the Democratic, Communist, or Green (we all know independents are all secretly republicans afterall) is proof of that. You won't even meet us halfway- in agreeing that the douglas firs can grow to half the size of redwood trees, or to stop using wood in house construction. Your anti-science, and anti-reason. We are the future!!!!!! We will force you to bow to our demands you damn Nazis, even if we have to burn down your wood infested home and beat you into submission. It's our way or the highway you dirty fucking Fascist.... now get in line, and march in step.


(That's what it is like if you can't convince yourself of the global warming activist- you get terrible logic, and even more terrible reactions- until eventually your somehow a racist. Never mind if your able to answer their every question about finding a solution to their carbon hysteria- fuck- it's not even that hard or complex to figure that one out or implement- the only problem is- I don't think it will do a damn thing about the glaciers- and I certainly don't want them coming back- I lived in Alaska- I've actually seen glaciers- I don't want them returning back- and the idea we can create a kind of weather control for the sake of maintaining the weather to match their childhood memories in perpetual seem egotistical and assine. The weather changes- that's just the way it is, history and geology show's that's always been the way it is.)