A good UK skeptic blog...

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/09/eco-humanism.html

September 23, 2009, 12:19:19 | Editors

At New Matilda, Sarah Burnside argues that:

  The simplest and most compelling argument for addressing climate change is humanist in nature. As
human beings, we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level
of provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense
of societal cohesiveness. By extension, policies put forward to combat the effects of climate
change need not be justified by invoking Gaia or anthropomorphising dolphins or polar bears.

This statement comes, not, as one might expect, as a criticism of the Green movement's tendency to
mythologise, or anthropomorphise the natural world, but at the end of an attack on 'deniers'. She
concludes:

  Rather, progressives sensibly argue that human beings have a duty to each other, including to
future generations. Humans will fail in this duty if we place short-term economic gain over the
environmental conditions which will shape the lives of humanity in the future.

  Arguments like these are drawn not from a "green religion", but from a belief in humanity.

Burnside must, however, recognise that there certainly exists a 'green religion', or at least, that
irrational ideas do operate, and achieve influence within the green 'movement'. She must also
recognise that these are the principle weaknesses of the movement she wishes to advance, and
moreover, are the principle object of the 'deniers' arguments, and ought to be the object of her
criticism too.

But as we have pointed out before, it is very hard for environmentalists to criticise their own. It
is not a movement which is able to reflect critically on itself, or even its own elements. It is,
so to speak, as if its 'own parts do not smell'. But in fact we don't need to look far to find
intensely anti-human and influential currents within the Green movement that stand opposed to
political and material freedoms - so much of it fails Burnside's test of humanism, comprehensively.

So what are we left with, if we strip away all of the anti-human elements of the entire green
movement? We think: nothing.

Burnside may want to disagree. In her attack on 'denialists', however, she gives us only two clues
as to what a green humanism might consist of:

  .human beings have a duty to each other, including to future generations.

and

  .we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level of
provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense of
societal cohesiveness.

This account of humanism doesn't identify anything which makes it distinct. You don't need to be an
environmentalist to believe in 'universal healthcare', or for social cohesion, for instance. The
rhetorical implication of Burnside's article is that the 'deniers' she lists just don't care about
people. Burnside talks more about policy than about precepts, and reveals more about her own
prejudices than her opponents'.

As we have argued here, one can understand climate change as a problem that needs addressing
without believing that the problems stand as moral imperatives that demand special form of
politics. We could - hypothetically - for instance, argue that an Arctic free from summer sea ice
is, while in some senses regrettable, perhaps a price worth paying for the development that might
cause it. We could, again hypothetically, emphasise that development offers the people who are most
vulnerable to climate a better hope of both prosperity and survival than does a 'sustainable'
lifestyle.

These propositions are, however, anathema to almost the entire green movement, who will put either
the worst-case scenario or the precautionary principle in the way of such a moral calculation.

This is because there is a fundamental idea operating within environmentalism which is incompatible
with humanism. It proposes that our principle relationship is not with each other, but with the
natural world. Accordingly, 'duty to each other' exists principally as a duty to the planet, and 
'societal
cohesiveness' comes from without humanity, being predicated on a sustainable relationship with the
natural world. In other words, human relationships are - and must be - mediated by the 
'environment'.
These precepts operate prior to the humanist ethic that Burnside attempts to claim for the green
movement: humanism is delimited by environmentalism. A failure to recognise these environmental
precepts is, according to environmentalists, equivalent to wanting to destroy humanity in an
environmental catastrophe.

There is no such thing as eco-humanism, nor progressive environmentalism. Environmentalism is
simply anti-human by degree - the extent to which any variant of environmentalism is anti-human is
the extent to which it subjects humans to environmental 'ethics'.

Any notion which doesn't take the possibility of global catastrophe for granted is excluded from
the discussion, and so the discussion about how to organise our lives is premised on the idea that
if we don't recognise environmental imperatives, we will necessarily create Thermageddon. The
problem with any such calculation is that its conclusion is its premise. It exists prior to the
scientific investigation of our influence on the climate, and it exists prior to the discussion
about how human society will in turn be influenced by that change, and how we ought to respond.

On Oct 21, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin"  wrote:
> A good UK skeptic blog...
>
> http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/09/eco-humanism.html
>
> September 23, 2009, 12:19:19 | Editors
>
> At New Matilda, Sarah Burnside argues that:
>
>   The simplest and most compelling argument for addressing climate change is humanist in nature. As
> human beings, we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level
> of provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense
> of societal cohesiveness. By extension, policies put forward to combat the effects of climate
> change need not be justified by invoking Gaia or anthropomorphising dolphins or polar bears.
>
> This statement comes, not, as one might expect, as a criticism of the Green movement's tendency to
> mythologise, or anthropomorphise the natural world, but at the end of an attack on 'deniers'. She
> concludes:
>
>   Rather, progressives sensibly argue that human beings have a duty to each other, including to
> future generations. Humans will fail in this duty if we place short-term economic gain over the
> environmental conditions which will shape the lives of humanity in the future.
>
>   Arguments like these are drawn not from a "green religion", but from a belief in humanity.
>
> Burnside must, however, recognise that there certainly exists a 'green religion', or at least, that
> irrational ideas do operate, and achieve influence within the green 'movement'. She must also
> recognise that these are the principle weaknesses of the movement she wishes to advance, and
> moreover, are the principle object of the 'deniers' arguments, and ought to be the object of her
> criticism too.
>
> But as we have pointed out before, it is very hard for environmentalists to criticise their own. It
> is not a movement which is able to reflect critically on itself, or even its own elements. It is,
> so to speak, as if its 'own parts do not smell'. But in fact we don't need to look far to find
> intensely anti-human and influential currents within the Green movement that stand opposed to
> political and material freedoms - so much of it fails Burnside's test of humanism, comprehensively.
>
> So what are we left with, if we strip away all of the anti-human elements of the entire green
> movement? We think: nothing.
>
> Burnside may want to disagree. In her attack on 'denialists', however, she gives us only two clues
> as to what a green humanism might consist of:
>
>   .human beings have a duty to each other, including to future generations.
>
> and
>
>   .we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level of
> provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense of
> societal cohesiveness.
>
> This account of humanism doesn't identify anything which makes it distinct. You don't need to be an
> environmentalist to believe in 'universal healthcare', or for social cohesion, for instance. The
> rhetorical implication of Burnside's article is that the 'deniers' she lists just don't care about
> people. Burnside talks more about policy than about precepts, and reveals more about her own
> prejudices than her opponents'.
>
> As we have argued here, one can understand climate change as a problem that needs addressing
> without believing that the problems stand as moral imperatives that demand special form of
> politics. We could - hypothetically - for instance, argue that an Arctic free from summer sea ice
> is, while in some senses regrettable, perhaps a price worth paying for the development that might
> cause it. We could, again hypothetically, emphasise that development offers the people who are most
> vulnerable to climate a better hope of both prosperity and survival than does a 'sustainable'
> lifestyle.
>
> These propositions are, however, anathema to almost the entire green movement, who will put either
> the worst-case scenario or the precautionary principle in the way of such a moral calculation.
>
> This is because there is a fundamental idea operating within environmentalism which is incompatible
> with humanism. It proposes that our principle relationship is not with each other, but with the
> natural world. Accordingly, 'duty to each other' exists principally as a duty to the planet, and
> 'societal
> cohesiveness' comes from without humanity, being predicated on a sustainable relationship with the
> natural world. In other words, human relationships are - and must be - mediated by the
> 'environment'.
> These precepts operate prior to the humanist ethic that Burnside attempts to claim for the green
> movement: humanism is delimited by environmentalism. A failure to recognise these environmental
> precepts is, according to environmentalists, equivalent to wanting to destroy humanity in an
> environmental catastrophe.
>
> There is no such thing as eco-humanism, nor progressive environmentalism. Environmentalism is
> simply anti-human by degree - the extent to which any variant of environmentalism is anti-human is
> the extent to which it subjects humans to environmental 'ethics'.
>
> Any notion which doesn't take the possibility of global catastrophe for granted is excluded from
> the discussion, and so the discussion about how to organise our lives is premised on the idea that
> if we don't recognise environmental imperatives, we will necessarily create Thermageddon. The
> problem with any such calculation is that its conclusion is its premise. It exists prior to the
> scientific investigation of our influence on the climate, and it exists prior to the discussion
> about how human society will in turn be influenced by that change, and how we ought to respond.

"...human beings have a duty to each other, including to future
generations...."

Do we have a duty to not lie to each other? Do we not have a duty to
tell the truth? Do we not have a duty to not un-necessarily scare the
fuck out of children with this agw myth? Do we not have a duty to not
try to destroy the economy and peoples livelihoods over unproven false
agw "science"? Do we have the duty of fucking with peoples minds with
this agw crap?

On Oct 21, 10:59 am, tunderbar  wrote:
> On Oct 21, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A good UK skeptic blog...
>
> >http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/09/eco-humanism.html
>
> > September 23, 2009, 12:19:19 | Editors
>
> > At New Matilda, Sarah Burnside argues that:
>
> >   The simplest and most compelling argument for addressing climate change is humanist in nature. As
> > human beings, we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level
> > of provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense
> > of societal cohesiveness. By extension, policies put forward to combat the effects of climate
> > change need not be justified by invoking Gaia or anthropomorphising dolphins or polar bears.
>
> > This statement comes, not, as one might expect, as a criticism of the Green movement's tendency to
> > mythologise, or anthropomorphise the natural world, but at the end of an attack on 'deniers'. She
> > concludes:
>
> >   Rather, progressives sensibly argue that human beings have a duty to each other, including to
> > future generations. Humans will fail in this duty if we place short-term economic gain over the
> > environmental conditions which will shape the lives of humanity in the future.
>
> >   Arguments like these are drawn not from a "green religion", but from a belief in humanity.
>
> > Burnside must, however, recognise that there certainly exists a 'green religion', or at least, that
> > irrational ideas do operate, and achieve influence within the green 'movement'. She must also
> > recognise that these are the principle weaknesses of the movement she wishes to advance, and
> > moreover, are the principle object of the 'deniers' arguments, and ought to be the object of her
> > criticism too.
>
> > But as we have pointed out before, it is very hard for environmentalists to criticise their own. It
> > is not a movement which is able to reflect critically on itself, or even its own elements. It is,
> > so to speak, as if its 'own parts do not smell'. But in fact we don't need to look far to find
> > intensely anti-human and influential currents within the Green movement that stand opposed to
> > political and material freedoms - so much of it fails Burnside's test of humanism, comprehensively.
>
> > So what are we left with, if we strip away all of the anti-human elements of the entire green
> > movement? We think: nothing.
>
> > Burnside may want to disagree. In her attack on 'denialists', however, she gives us only two clues
> > as to what a green humanism might consist of:
>
> >   .human beings have a duty to each other, including to future generations.
>
> > and
>
> >   .we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level of
> > provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense of
> > societal cohesiveness.
>
> > This account of humanism doesn't identify anything which makes it distinct. You don't need to be an
> > environmentalist to believe in 'universal healthcare', or for social cohesion, for instance. The
> > rhetorical implication of Burnside's article is that the 'deniers' she lists just don't care about
> > people. Burnside talks more about policy than about precepts, and reveals more about her own
> > prejudices than her opponents'.
>
> > As we have argued here, one can understand climate change as a problem that needs addressing
> > without believing that the problems stand as moral imperatives that demand special form of
> > politics. We could - hypothetically - for instance, argue that an Arctic free from summer sea ice
> > is, while in some senses regrettable, perhaps a price worth paying for the development that might
> > cause it. We could, again hypothetically, emphasise that development offers the people who are most
> > vulnerable to climate a better hope of both prosperity and survival than does a 'sustainable'
> > lifestyle.
>
> > These propositions are, however, anathema to almost the entire green movement, who will put either
> > the worst-case scenario or the precautionary principle in the way of such a moral calculation.
>
> > This is because there is a fundamental idea operating within environmentalism which is incompatible
> > with humanism. It proposes that our principle relationship is not with each other, but with the
> > natural world. Accordingly, 'duty to each other' exists principally as a duty to the planet, and
> > 'societal
> > cohesiveness' comes from without humanity, being predicated on a sustainable relationship with the
> > natural world. In other words, human relationships are - and must be - mediated by the
> > 'environment'.
> > These precepts operate prior to the humanist ethic that Burnside attempts to claim for the green
> > movement: humanism is delimited by environmentalism. A failure to recognise these environmental
> > precepts is, according to environmentalists, equivalent to wanting to destroy humanity in an
> > environmental catastrophe.
>
> > There is no such thing as eco-humanism, nor progressive environmentalism. Environmentalism is
> > simply anti-human by degree - the extent to which any variant of environmentalism is anti-human is
> > the extent to which it subjects humans to environmental 'ethics'.
>
> > Any notion which doesn't take the possibility of global catastrophe for granted is excluded from
> > the discussion, and so the discussion about how to organise our lives is premised on the idea that
> > if we don't recognise environmental imperatives, we will necessarily create Thermageddon. The
> > problem with any such calculation is that its conclusion is its premise. It exists prior to the
> > scientific investigation of our influence on the climate, and it exists prior to the discussion
> > about how human society will in turn be influenced by that change, and how we ought to respond.
>
> "...human beings have a duty to each other, including to future
> generations...."
>
> Do we have a duty to not lie to each other? Do we not have a duty to
> tell the truth? Do we not have a duty to not un-necessarily scare the
> fuck out of children with this agw myth? Do we not have a duty to not
> try to destroy the economy and peoples livelihoods over unproven false
> agw "science"? Do we have the duty of fucking with peoples minds with
> this agw crap?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

what about stewardship?

On Oct 21, 1:21 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
 wrote:
> On Oct 21, 10:59 am, tunderbar  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin"  wrote:
>
> > > A good UK skeptic blog...
>
> > >http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/09/eco-humanism.html
>
> > > September 23, 2009, 12:19:19 | Editors
>
> > > At New Matilda, Sarah Burnside argues that:
>
> > >   The simplest and most compelling argument for addressing climate change is humanist in nature. As
> > > human beings, we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level
> > > of provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense
> > > of societal cohesiveness. By extension, policies put forward to combat the effects of climate
> > > change need not be justified by invoking Gaia or anthropomorphising dolphins or polar bears.
>
> > > This statement comes, not, as one might expect, as a criticism of the Green movement's tendency to
> > > mythologise, or anthropomorphise the natural world, but at the end of an attack on 'deniers'. She
> > > concludes:
>
> > >   Rather, progressives sensibly argue that human beings have a duty to each other, including to
> > > future generations. Humans will fail in this duty if we place short-term economic gain over the
> > > environmental conditions which will shape the lives of humanity in the future.
>
> > >   Arguments like these are drawn not from a "green religion", but from a belief in humanity.
>
> > > Burnside must, however, recognise that there certainly exists a 'green religion', or at least, that
> > > irrational ideas do operate, and achieve influence within the green 'movement'. She must also
> > > recognise that these are the principle weaknesses of the movement she wishes to advance, and
> > > moreover, are the principle object of the 'deniers' arguments, and ought to be the object of her
> > > criticism too.
>
> > > But as we have pointed out before, it is very hard for environmentalists to criticise their own. It
> > > is not a movement which is able to reflect critically on itself, or even its own elements. It is,
> > > so to speak, as if its 'own parts do not smell'. But in fact we don't need to look far to find
> > > intensely anti-human and influential currents within the Green movement that stand opposed to
> > > political and material freedoms - so much of it fails Burnside's test of humanism, comprehensively.
>
> > > So what are we left with, if we strip away all of the anti-human elements of the entire green
> > > movement? We think: nothing.
>
> > > Burnside may want to disagree. In her attack on 'denialists', however, she gives us only two clues
> > > as to what a green humanism might consist of:
>
> > >   .human beings have a duty to each other, including to future generations.
>
> > > and
>
> > >   .we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level of
> > > provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense of
> > > societal cohesiveness.
>
> > > This account of humanism doesn't identify anything which makes it distinct. You don't need to be an
> > > environmentalist to believe in 'universal healthcare', or for social cohesion, for instance. The
> > > rhetorical implication of Burnside's article is that the 'deniers' she lists just don't care about
> > > people. Burnside talks more about policy than about precepts, and reveals more about her own
> > > prejudices than her opponents'.
>
> > > As we have argued here, one can understand climate change as a problem that needs addressing
> > > without believing that the problems stand as moral imperatives that demand special form of
> > > politics. We could - hypothetically - for instance, argue that an Arctic free from summer sea ice
> > > is, while in some senses regrettable, perhaps a price worth paying for the development that might
> > > cause it. We could, again hypothetically, emphasise that development offers the people who are most
> > > vulnerable to climate a better hope of both prosperity and survival than does a 'sustainable'
> > > lifestyle.
>
> > > These propositions are, however, anathema to almost the entire green movement, who will put either
> > > the worst-case scenario or the precautionary principle in the way of such a moral calculation.
>
> > > This is because there is a fundamental idea operating within environmentalism which is incompatible
> > > with humanism. It proposes that our principle relationship is not with each other, but with the
> > > natural world. Accordingly, 'duty to each other' exists principally as a duty to the planet, and
> > > 'societal
> > > cohesiveness' comes from without humanity, being predicated on a sustainable relationship with the
> > > natural world. In other words, human relationships are - and must be - mediated by the
> > > 'environment'.
> > > These precepts operate prior to the humanist ethic that Burnside attempts to claim for the green
> > > movement: humanism is delimited by environmentalism. A failure to recognise these environmental
> > > precepts is, according to environmentalists, equivalent to wanting to destroy humanity in an
> > > environmental catastrophe.
>
> > > There is no such thing as eco-humanism, nor progressive environmentalism. Environmentalism is
> > > simply anti-human by degree - the extent to which any variant of environmentalism is anti-human is
> > > the extent to which it subjects humans to environmental 'ethics'.
>
> > > Any notion which doesn't take the possibility of global catastrophe for granted is excluded from
> > > the discussion, and so the discussion about how to organise our lives is premised on the idea that
> > > if we don't recognise environmental imperatives, we will necessarily create Thermageddon. The
> > > problem with any such calculation is that its conclusion is its premise. It exists prior to the
> > > scientific investigation of our influence on the climate, and it exists prior to the discussion
> > > about how human society will in turn be influenced by that change, and how we ought to respond.
>
> > "...human beings have a duty to each other, including to future
> > generations...."
>
> > Do we have a duty to not lie to each other? Do we not have a duty to
> > tell the truth? Do we not have a duty to not un-necessarily scare the
> > fuck out of children with this agw myth? Do we not have a duty to not
> > try to destroy the economy and peoples livelihoods over unproven false
> > agw "science"? Do we have the duty of fucking with peoples minds with
> > this agw crap?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> what about stewardship?

Steward the real fucking world, not some made up fudged cherry-picked
IPCC Al Gore lies.

On Oct 21, 11:53 am, tunderbar  wrote:
> On Oct 21, 1:21 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 10:59 am, tunderbar  wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 21, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin"  wrote:
>
> > > > A good UK skeptic blog...
>
> > > >http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/09/eco-humanism.html
>
> > > > September 23, 2009, 12:19:19 | Editors
>
> > > > At New Matilda, Sarah Burnside argues that:
>
> > > >   The simplest and most compelling argument for addressing climate change is humanist in nature. As
> > > > human beings, we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level
> > > > of provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense
> > > > of societal cohesiveness. By extension, policies put forward to combat the effects of climate
> > > > change need not be justified by invoking Gaia or anthropomorphising dolphins or polar bears.
>
> > > > This statement comes, not, as one might expect, as a criticism of the Green movement's tendency to
> > > > mythologise, or anthropomorphise the natural world, but at the end of an attack on 'deniers'. She
> > > > concludes:
>
> > > >   Rather, progressives sensibly argue that human beings have a duty to each other, including to
> > > > future generations. Humans will fail in this duty if we place short-term economic gain over the
> > > > environmental conditions which will shape the lives of humanity in the future.
>
> > > >   Arguments like these are drawn not from a "green religion", but from a belief in humanity.
>
> > > > Burnside must, however, recognise that there certainly exists a 'green religion', or at least, that
> > > > irrational ideas do operate, and achieve influence within the green 'movement'. She must also
> > > > recognise that these are the principle weaknesses of the movement she wishes to advance, and
> > > > moreover, are the principle object of the 'deniers' arguments, and ought to be the object of her
> > > > criticism too.
>
> > > > But as we have pointed out before, it is very hard for environmentalists to criticise their own. It
> > > > is not a movement which is able to reflect critically on itself, or even its own elements. It is,
> > > > so to speak, as if its 'own parts do not smell'. But in fact we don't need to look far to find
> > > > intensely anti-human and influential currents within the Green movement that stand opposed to
> > > > political and material freedoms - so much of it fails Burnside's test of humanism, comprehensively.
>
> > > > So what are we left with, if we strip away all of the anti-human elements of the entire green
> > > > movement? We think: nothing.
>
> > > > Burnside may want to disagree. In her attack on 'denialists', however, she gives us only two clues
> > > > as to what a green humanism might consist of:
>
> > > >   .human beings have a duty to each other, including to future generations.
>
> > > > and
>
> > > >   .we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level of
> > > > provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense of
> > > > societal cohesiveness.
>
> > > > This account of humanism doesn't identify anything which makes it distinct. You don't need to be an
> > > > environmentalist to believe in 'universal healthcare', or for social cohesion, for instance. The
> > > > rhetorical implication of Burnside's article is that the 'deniers' she lists just don't care about
> > > > people. Burnside talks more about policy than about precepts, and reveals more about her own
> > > > prejudices than her opponents'.
>
> > > > As we have argued here, one can understand climate change as a problem that needs addressing
> > > > without believing that the problems stand as moral imperatives that demand special form of
> > > > politics. We could - hypothetically - for instance, argue that an Arctic free from summer sea ice
> > > > is, while in some senses regrettable, perhaps a price worth paying for the development that might
> > > > cause it. We could, again hypothetically, emphasise that development offers the people who are most
> > > > vulnerable to climate a better hope of both prosperity and survival than does a 'sustainable'
> > > > lifestyle.
>
> > > > These propositions are, however, anathema to almost the entire green movement, who will put either
> > > > the worst-case scenario or the precautionary principle in the way of such a moral calculation.
>
> > > > This is because there is a fundamental idea operating within environmentalism which is incompatible
> > > > with humanism. It proposes that our principle relationship is not with each other, but with the
> > > > natural world. Accordingly, 'duty to each other' exists principally as a duty to the planet, and
> > > > 'societal
> > > > cohesiveness' comes from without humanity, being predicated on a sustainable relationship with the
> > > > natural world. In other words, human relationships are - and must be - mediated by the
> > > > 'environment'.
> > > > These precepts operate prior to the humanist ethic that Burnside attempts to claim for the green
> > > > movement: humanism is delimited by environmentalism. A failure to recognise these environmental
> > > > precepts is, according to environmentalists, equivalent to wanting to destroy humanity in an
> > > > environmental catastrophe.
>
> > > > There is no such thing as eco-humanism, nor progressive environmentalism. Environmentalism is
> > > > simply anti-human by degree - the extent to which any variant of environmentalism is anti-human is
> > > > the extent to which it subjects humans to environmental 'ethics'.
>
> > > > Any notion which doesn't take the possibility of global catastrophe for granted is excluded from
> > > > the discussion, and so the discussion about how to organise our lives is premised on the idea that
> > > > if we don't recognise environmental imperatives, we will necessarily create Thermageddon. The
> > > > problem with any such calculation is that its conclusion is its premise. It exists prior to the
> > > > scientific investigation of our influence on the climate, and it exists prior to the discussion
> > > > about how human society will in turn be influenced by that change, and how we ought to respond.
>
> > > "...human beings have a duty to each other, including to future
> > > generations...."
>
> > > Do we have a duty to not lie to each other? Do we not have a duty to
> > > tell the truth? Do we not have a duty to not un-necessarily scare the
> > > fuck out of children with this agw myth? Do we not have a duty to not
> > > try to destroy the economy and peoples livelihoods over unproven false
> > > agw "science"? Do we have the duty of fucking with peoples minds with
> > > this agw crap?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > what about stewardship?
>
> Steward the real fucking world, not some made up fudged cherry-picked
> IPCC Al Gore lies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

laughing, it didnt think you had a real reply...

On Oct 22, 6:05 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
 wrote:
> On Oct 21, 11:53 am, tunderbar  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 1:21 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> >  wrote:
> > > On Oct 21, 10:59 am, tunderbar  wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 21, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin"  wrote:
>
> > > > > A good UK skeptic blog...
>
> > > > >http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/09/eco-humanism.html
>
> > > > > September 23, 2009, 12:19:19 | Editors
>
> > > > > At New Matilda, Sarah Burnside argues that:
>
> > > > >   The simplest and most compelling argument for addressing climate change is humanist in nature. As
> > > > > human beings, we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level
> > > > > of provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense
> > > > > of societal cohesiveness. By extension, policies put forward to combat the effects of climate
> > > > > change need not be justified by invoking Gaia or anthropomorphising dolphins or polar bears.
>
> > > > > This statement comes, not, as one might expect, as a criticism of the Green movement's tendency to
> > > > > mythologise, or anthropomorphise the natural world, but at the end of an attack on 'deniers'. She
> > > > > concludes:
>
> > > > >   Rather, progressives sensibly argue that human beings have a duty to each other, including to
> > > > > future generations. Humans will fail in this duty if we place short-term economic gain over the
> > > > > environmental conditions which will shape the lives of humanity in the future.
>
> > > > >   Arguments like these are drawn not from a "green religion", but from a belief in humanity.
>
> > > > > Burnside must, however, recognise that there certainly exists a 'green religion', or at least, that
> > > > > irrational ideas do operate, and achieve influence within the green 'movement'. She must also
> > > > > recognise that these are the principle weaknesses of the movement she wishes to advance, and
> > > > > moreover, are the principle object of the 'deniers' arguments, and ought to be the object of her
> > > > > criticism too.
>
> > > > > But as we have pointed out before, it is very hard for environmentalists to criticise their own. It
> > > > > is not a movement which is able to reflect critically on itself, or even its own elements. It is,
> > > > > so to speak, as if its 'own parts do not smell'. But in fact we don't need to look far to find
> > > > > intensely anti-human and influential currents within the Green movement that stand opposed to
> > > > > political and material freedoms - so much of it fails Burnside's test of humanism, comprehensively.
>
> > > > > So what are we left with, if we strip away all of the anti-human elements of the entire green
> > > > > movement? We think: nothing.
>
> > > > > Burnside may want to disagree. In her attack on 'denialists', however, she gives us only two clues
> > > > > as to what a green humanism might consist of:
>
> > > > >   .human beings have a duty to each other, including to future generations.
>
> > > > > and
>
> > > > >   .we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level of
> > > > > provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense of
> > > > > societal cohesiveness.
>
> > > > > This account of humanism doesn't identify anything which makes it distinct. You don't need to be an
> > > > > environmentalist to believe in 'universal healthcare', or for social cohesion, for instance. The
> > > > > rhetorical implication of Burnside's article is that the 'deniers' she lists just don't care about
> > > > > people. Burnside talks more about policy than about precepts, and reveals more about her own
> > > > > prejudices than her opponents'.
>
> > > > > As we have argued here, one can understand climate change as a problem that needs addressing
> > > > > without believing that the problems stand as moral imperatives that demand special form of
> > > > > politics. We could - hypothetically - for instance, argue that an Arctic free from summer sea ice
> > > > > is, while in some senses regrettable, perhaps a price worth paying for the development that might
> > > > > cause it. We could, again hypothetically, emphasise that development offers the people who are most
> > > > > vulnerable to climate a better hope of both prosperity and survival than does a 'sustainable'
> > > > > lifestyle.
>
> > > > > These propositions are, however, anathema to almost the entire green movement, who will put either
> > > > > the worst-case scenario or the precautionary principle in the way of such a moral calculation.
>
> > > > > This is because there is a fundamental idea operating within environmentalism which is incompatible
> > > > > with humanism. It proposes that our principle relationship is not with each other, but with the
> > > > > natural world. Accordingly, 'duty to each other' exists principally as a duty to the planet, and
> > > > > 'societal
> > > > > cohesiveness' comes from without humanity, being predicated on a sustainable relationship with the
> > > > > natural world. In other words, human relationships are - and must be - mediated by the
> > > > > 'environment'.
> > > > > These precepts operate prior to the humanist ethic that Burnside attempts to claim for the green
> > > > > movement: humanism is delimited by environmentalism. A failure to recognise these environmental
> > > > > precepts is, according to environmentalists, equivalent to wanting to destroy humanity in an
> > > > > environmental catastrophe.
>
> > > > > There is no such thing as eco-humanism, nor progressive environmentalism. Environmentalism is
> > > > > simply anti-human by degree - the extent to which any variant of environmentalism is anti-human is
> > > > > the extent to which it subjects humans to environmental 'ethics'.
>
> > > > > Any notion which doesn't take the possibility of global catastrophe for granted is excluded from
> > > > > the discussion, and so the discussion about how to organise our lives is premised on the idea that
> > > > > if we don't recognise environmental imperatives, we will necessarily create Thermageddon. The
> > > > > problem with any such calculation is that its conclusion is its premise. It exists prior to the
> > > > > scientific investigation of our influence on the climate, and it exists prior to the discussion
> > > > > about how human society will in turn be influenced by that change, and how we ought to respond.
>
> > > > "...human beings have a duty to each other, including to future
> > > > generations...."
>
> > > > Do we have a duty to not lie to each other? Do we not have a duty to
> > > > tell the truth? Do we not have a duty to not un-necessarily scare the
> > > > fuck out of children with this agw myth? Do we not have a duty to not
> > > > try to destroy the economy and peoples livelihoods over unproven false
> > > > agw "science"? Do we have the duty of fucking with peoples minds with
> > > > this agw crap?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > what about stewardship?
>
> > Steward the real fucking world, not some made up fudged cherry-picked
> > IPCC Al Gore lies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> laughing, it didnt think you had a real reply...-


And the piece from which the OP quotes describes an attitude, which,
as a humanist, I'd endorse. We humans do bear each other duties, and
that reality is one reason why, as a species, we have come to dominate
the planet.

In so far as ecosystem services are the sine qua non of human
existence, we all of us have a duty not to harm them, and more, to do
what we reasonably can to underpin them. Precisely because the
ecosystem is complex and dynamic and we can't know for sure what
skewing one of its components will do, this entails first of all the
principle of "do no harm".

That is why we think preservation of biodiversity is a good thing. To
the extent we are successful, it's proof that we are indeed "doing no
harm".

Fran

On Oct 21, 5:10 pm, Fran  wrote:
> On Oct 22, 6:05 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 11:53 am, tunderbar  wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 21, 1:21 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > >  wrote:
> > > > On Oct 21, 10:59 am, tunderbar  wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 21, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin"  wrote:
>
> > > > > > A good UK skeptic blog...
>
> > > > > >http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/09/eco-humanism.html
>
> > > > > > September 23, 2009, 12:19:19 | Editors
>
> > > > > > At New Matilda, Sarah Burnside argues that:
>
> > > > > >   The simplest and most compelling argument for addressing climate change is humanist in nature. As
> > > > > > human beings, we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level
> > > > > > of provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense
> > > > > > of societal cohesiveness. By extension, policies put forward to combat the effects of climate
> > > > > > change need not be justified by invoking Gaia or anthropomorphising dolphins or polar bears.
>
> > > > > > This statement comes, not, as one might expect, as a criticism of the Green movement's tendency to
> > > > > > mythologise, or anthropomorphise the natural world, but at the end of an attack on 'deniers'. She
> > > > > > concludes:
>
> > > > > >   Rather, progressives sensibly argue that human beings have a duty to each other, including to
> > > > > > future generations. Humans will fail in this duty if we place short-term economic gain over the
> > > > > > environmental conditions which will shape the lives of humanity in the future.
>
> > > > > >   Arguments like these are drawn not from a "green religion", but from a belief in humanity.
>
> > > > > > Burnside must, however, recognise that there certainly exists a 'green religion', or at least, that
> > > > > > irrational ideas do operate, and achieve influence within the green 'movement'. She must also
> > > > > > recognise that these are the principle weaknesses of the movement she wishes to advance, and
> > > > > > moreover, are the principle object of the 'deniers' arguments, and ought to be the object of her
> > > > > > criticism too.
>
> > > > > > But as we have pointed out before, it is very hard for environmentalists to criticise their own. It
> > > > > > is not a movement which is able to reflect critically on itself, or even its own elements. It is,
> > > > > > so to speak, as if its 'own parts do not smell'. But in fact we don't need to look far to find
> > > > > > intensely anti-human and influential currents within the Green movement that stand opposed to
> > > > > > political and material freedoms - so much of it fails Burnside's test ofhumanism, comprehensively.
>
> > > > > > So what are we left with, if we strip away all of the anti-human elements of the entire green
> > > > > > movement? We think: nothing.
>
> > > > > > Burnside may want to disagree. In her attack on 'denialists', however, she gives us only two clues
> > > > > > as to what a greenhumanismmight consist of:
>
> > > > > >   .human beings have a duty to each other, including to future generations.
>
> > > > > > and
>
> > > > > >   .we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level of
> > > > > > provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract sense of
> > > > > > societal cohesiveness.
>
> > > > > > This account ofhumanismdoesn't identify anything which makes it distinct. You don't need to be an
> > > > > > environmentalist to believe in 'universal healthcare', or for social cohesion, for instance. The
> > > > > > rhetorical implication of Burnside's article is that the 'deniers' she lists just don't care about
> > > > > > people. Burnside talks more about policy than about precepts, and reveals more about her own
> > > > > > prejudices than her opponents'.
>
> > > > > > As we have argued here, one can understand climate change as a problem that needs addressing
> > > > > > without believing that the problems stand as moral imperatives that demand special form of
> > > > > > politics. We could - hypothetically - for instance, argue that an Arctic free from summer sea ice
> > > > > > is, while in some senses regrettable, perhaps a price worth paying for the development that might
> > > > > > cause it. We could, again hypothetically, emphasise that development offers the people who are most
> > > > > > vulnerable to climate a better hope of both prosperity and survival than does a 'sustainable'
> > > > > > lifestyle.
>
> > > > > > These propositions are, however, anathema to almost the entire green movement, who will put either
> > > > > > the worst-case scenario or the precautionary principle in the way of such a moral calculation.
>
> > > > > > This is because there is a fundamental idea operating within environmentalism which is incompatible
> > > > > > withhumanism. It proposes that our principle relationship is not with each other, but with the
> > > > > > natural world. Accordingly, 'duty to each other' exists principally as a duty to the planet, and
> > > > > > 'societal
> > > > > > cohesiveness' comes from without humanity, being predicated on a sustainable relationship with the
> > > > > > natural world. In other words, human relationships are - and must be - mediated by the
> > > > > > 'environment'.
> > > > > > These precepts operate prior to the humanist ethic that Burnside attempts to claim for the green
> > > > > > movement:humanismis delimited by environmentalism. A failure to recognise these environmental
> > > > > > precepts is, according to environmentalists, equivalent to wanting to destroy humanity in an
> > > > > > environmental catastrophe.
>
> > > > > > There is no such thing as eco-humanism, nor progressive environmentalism. Environmentalism is
> > > > > > simply anti-human by degree - the extent to which any variant of environmentalism is anti-human is
> > > > > > the extent to which it subjects humans to environmental 'ethics> > > > > > Any notion which doesn't take the possibility of global catastrophe for granted is excluded from
> > > > > > the discussion, and so the discussion about how to organise our lives is premised on the idea that
> > > > > > if we don't recognise environmental imperatives, we will necessarily create Thermageddon. The
> > > > > > problem with any such calculation is that its conclusion is its premise. It exists prior to the
> > > > > > scientific investigation of our influence on the climate, and it exists prior to the discussion
> > > > > > about how human society will in turn be influenced by that change, and how we ought to respond.
>
> > > > > "...human beings have a duty to each other, including to future
> > > > > generations...."
>
> > > > > Do we have a duty to not lie to each other? Do we not have a duty to
> > > > > tell the truth? Do we not have a duty to not un-necessarily scare the
> > > > > fuck out of children with this agw myth? Do we not have a duty to not
> > > > > try to destroy the economy and peoples livelihoods over unproven false
> > > > > agw "science"? Do we have the duty of fucking with peoples minds with
> > > > > this agw crap?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > what about stewardship?
>
> > > Steward the real fucking world, not some made up fudged cherry-picked
> > > IPCC Al Gore lies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > laughing, it didnt think you had a real reply...-
>
> And the piece from which the OP quotes describes an attitude, which,
> as a humanist, I'd endorse. We humans do bear each other duties, and
> that reality is one reason why, as a species, we have come to dominate
> the planet.
>
> In so far as ecosystem services are the sine qua non of human
> existence, we all of us have a duty not to harm them, and more, to do
> what we reasonably can to underpin them. Precisely because the
> ecosystem is complex and dynamic and we can't know for sure what
> skewing one of its components will do, this entails first of all the
> principle of "do no harm".
>
> That is why we think preservation of biodiversity is a good thing. To
> the extent we are successful, it's proof that we are indeed "doing no
> harm".
>
> Fran- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


You don't talk as though you are a humanist. Humanists
worship Homo Sapien. The Good Guys worship animals,
rivers and trees.