Talk:Hard green/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 15 January 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

umm

define "hard". "humans solely as a polluting influence on the environment" this what we call environmentalism, how it becomes hard??? --Foofan (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• umm... if that's your definition of environmentalism, you may be a hard green yourself. The idea is to figure out how to clean up our damage and live in harmony with the environment, not to cut ourselves out of the loop entirely. EVDebs (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

People who need to be added as Hard Green

I think we need to add James Lovelock to this page or make a page specifically designated to his views and how hard green they are. I viewed an interview of him on Youtube. Looking at the info of the video he claims (no facts after to prove it) that scientists "fudge the data" on climate change and it will not go the way scientists have predicted it. Even though I have researched myself that on numerous websites NASA, IPCC , NOAA, and EDF; that by the facts from studies that they did, things have been mostly going the way they have predicted using the said data. I think he is the very model of the hard green ideology and is just as bad as the deniers. After looking at some of his statements, one involving nuclear energy and how it is the only energy solution, he fits the whole philosophy after reading this page. It seems he doesn't know that the theory he came up with is drivel and shoots his mouth off about how any kind of conservation efforts are useless. People actually believe him which sucks because it is not going to help taking action. I think people need to know that something is wrong with what he is saying. (Ps. I'm new to RationalWiki so I've never done this before.) --AmazingS37 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)AmazingS37

Given that Lovelock authored the Gaia hypothesis, I would concur. Lovelock is certainly a by-the-book hard green. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 23:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

utter bullshit passing as sensible?

"wild apocalyptic claims that the oceans are dying from biological meltdown due to overfishing"

I don't know who wrote this garbage, but they obviously know nothing about the oceans' fisheries. ħuman 04:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Despite the fact that there's no shortage of fishermen in denial about it, the effect of overfishing as well as some of the more destructive methods (particularly longline and bottom-trawling) are well-documented. EVDebs (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A Hard Green category?

Does RW need a specific Hard Green ("greenbattery"?) category? I thought it might be helpful to quickly spot/categorise the persons listed in this article and their ideological counterparts and not solely lumping them in with other environmentalists. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Do it! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is what is needed

... according to these are the black flowers from 'Edge of Darkness'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hard green moonbats and/or wingnuts

Since the moonbattery and wingnuttery categories became subdivided, I think we're getting into murkier waters in defining hard greens. I'll buy the libertarian moonbattery and authoritarian wingnuttery categories because utopian "back to the soil"-types belonging to the former and Pentti Linkola's ecofascism to the latter category. However, I'm not sure whether there are any authoritarian moonbat hard greens. "Classic communism" (e.g. Stalinism or Maoism) is generally indifferent to environmental concerns, prioritising industrialisation. Just off the bat, I can only think of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge's "primitivist communism" as anything like hard green, and that was not, as far as I know, because of any concern for the environment. So perhaps the authoritarian moonbattery tag needs to go? ScepticWombat (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that they're shitty categories. "extreme moonbattery" was created for false balance with "extreme wingnuttery", and subdividing it similarly even when it doesn't make sense continues the false balance. OTOH, if anything is "extreme moonbattery" it's hard green. I've put it back to "extreme moonbattery" for the moment, but the problem that they're shitty categories remains - David Gerard (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

this article should be burnt to the ground and rewritten

It's written by idiots. Every paragraph is filled with ridiculous bullshit. There's a long list intended to implicate a bunch of incredibly respectable, well-known-for-being-super-reasonable people at one point, but it appears that almost every crazy point is paired with a basic accepted scientific reality as if to discredit both. This page comes across as being a bunch of "climate change is a hoax and the environment is fine" wishful thinking. for instance as one example of many, there are currently 73% fewer animals in the ocean than there were only 40 years ago, but the article laughs it off implying that there has been no damage. The article would be hilarious if it weren't supposed to be rational-wiki.^{— Unsigned, by: ANGRY bonbon / talk / contribs}

This would be bothersome if you could read. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Drink! WalkerWalkerWalker 07:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

To Weaseloid

Why did you revert? „Captain“ Watson defines the law according to his own understanding of legality, which is that he's right, no matter what. I'll revert your reversion for now. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but moderator or not, please state your reasons. Antipathy or sympathy aside, every case should be judged by it's own merits. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, undone as promised. Could you explain how Sea Shepherd's understanding of the law makes things legal. There is, for instance not a total ban on whaling, and Sea Shepherders themselves are on record for saying precisely that their „understanding“ trumps everything. Keep this in mind, please, before you undo me blindly. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The article text in that paragraph states "Sea Shepherd claims they are acting under the color of international law". Sea Shepherd's website states "Sea Shepherd uses innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas". Your assertion that "Legality has nothing to do with the case" is untenable. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that you have been told not to edit war & that you should seek consensus on the talk page in cases where you are reverted. This is the last warning you will receive from me about this. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I know what was said. It was you, however, who started this one and apparently with the barest knowledge. The law, when it comes to „Captain“ Watson as he prefers to be called, is simply what he decides as needed. You have obviously fallen into that trap or better put clap trap and can't be bothered with too much thinking about it. I'll leave the field to you. This is after all a mobocracy, not to be confused with democracy, oligarchy or even a committee of wise people. But to take Sea Sheperd's propaganda site as a reliable source is something no adult would do. Please continue on your destructive tour. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I find myself in the odd company of SorteSlyngel and TruthTellah here. The inclusion of the word "illegal" in the context appears to me to lend the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) a degree of legitimacy that I find wholly inappropriate (as well as out of tune with the RW article on the organisation), not to mention that it seems to imply that SSCS wouldn't object to any kind of "whaling and seal hunting", a contention I find rather far fetched. Finally, before November 2014 it was not clear that the Japanese (apparently the typical targets of SSCS) were practising illegal whaling. Although their claims of a "scientific" purpose have always rung rather hollow, it was not until 2014 that this claim was formally declared in contravention of the moratorium by the International Court of Justice, so any SSCS action prior to that date (more than a decade's worth of direct action) cannot be claimed to have had any legal basis. As for the Norwegians, arguably the second most active whaling nation, they have simply not signed up to the moratorium (in contrast to the Japanese), so any whaling by them isn't illegal. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentence in question is about whaling activities which Sea Shepherd directly interfere with, not what they merely "object to". AFAICT they have always claimed to be targeting illegal whalers, though of course the whalers themselves would dispute this. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Not so odd, dear Marsupial: It happens on occasion that we are both right at the same time. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Weaseloid. Are you saying that SSCS doesn't interfere directly with the Norwegians and Faroese? As far as I know, SSCS has used direct action against both the traditional pilot whale hunting/slaughter on the Faroe Islands (which is explicitly allowed by the moratorium) as well as against Norwegian whalers, who, due to their nation never having assented to it, are not subject to the moratorium. In neither Norway nor the Faroe Islands are we dealing with the kind of dubious scientific mantle the Japanese were using for their cover and even in the Japanese case, their whaling wasn't unequivocally illegal (though it was clearly legally iffy and I wonder why it took so long before a suit was brought against Japan) until the ICJ verdict, more than a decade after the SSCS had started its campaigns. Using the SSCS's definition of "illegal" is hardly better than using the whalers'. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

while the unabomber has some connections to anarcho-primitivists, he himself has never been one and actually wrote "the truth about primitive life" as a critique of anarcho primitivism.

also, i really dont think it's fair to lable "general opposition to consumerism and shopping" as part of the hard green movement. that stament can be made to most anti-capitalist, including those who see nothing wrong with civilization, and also to a lot of mainstream environmentalists. some hippies living on a sustainable farm would probably have a general opposition to consumerism and shopping, but that doesnt mean they consider "humans solely as a polluting influence on the environment." likewise, freeganism, while again being anti-consumption doesnt mean it is anti-human. it may be an extream form of trying to limit an individuals negative impact on the planet, but that certainly doesnt equate it with being anti-human or anti-civilization. ^{— Unsigned, by: 83.7.193.240 / talk / contribs}

Thoughts on Murray Bookchin?

He was a 'green anarchist'. But from what I've heard, he was really a libertarian socialist that advocated more green stuff than say, Bakunin or Chomsky. He also really liked technology, unlike the other hard greens. But did he do or say anything hard green to be included into the hard green list? Legomania105 (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)