Aids HIV FAQ

Environmentalists for human deaths (was Re: Major problem with Re: Environmentalists for human deaths (was Re: Major problem responsibility

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> If you want to know more about non industrial civilisation you >> should study the latest findings of the relevant authorities, >> otherwise don’t pontificate on subjects you know nothing about. >It is tough to live thru the winter in Sweden, Finland, Canada, etc >eithouth good housing and an industrial society helps a lot with that. >I assume you propose to "depopulate" those countries? > I suggest that those who oppose the industrial revolution study history.  Pay > particular attention to the continuous inter-tribal warfare of most native > american and other primitive tribes, and the Orwellian-type religious > dictatorship that existed in the "civilized" world.

<ETC> There is a problem here. When your opinions support or go along with the commonly held view of things, that which is reiterated time and time again in the mass media, you can make short statements full of assumptions, which won’t be questioned, as the assumptions are shared by the majority of people. All that is debated are minor offshoots. The underlying assumptions are not challenged, they are unquestioningly accepted as ‘facts’. But when your view is _radically_ different, you do not have the luxury of the sound bite. Every sentence needs to be backed up with an explanation, every concept has behind it dozens of other concepts which, if not included, will only make sense to others who have looked into those concepts, You will not be understood. This may be a solution. See next message. Andy http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html South Downs EF!,  Prior House       6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK "I can trace my family back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable."         – William Schwenck Gilbert, "The Mikado".

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I suggest that those who oppose the industrial revolution study history.  Pay > particular attention to the continuous inter-tribal warfare of most native > american and other primitive tribes, and the Orwellian-type religious > dictatorship that existed in the "civilized" world. ><ETC> >There is a problem here. >When your opinions support or go along with the commonly held view of things, >that which is reiterated time and time again in the mass media, you can make >short statements full of assumptions, which won’t be questioned, as the >assumptions are shared by the majority of people. All that is debated are minor >offshoots. The underlying assumptions are not challenged, they are >unquestioningly accepted as ‘facts’. >But when your view is _radically_ different, you do not have the luxury of the >sound bite. Every sentence needs to be backed up with an explanation, every >concept has behind it dozens of other concepts which, if not included, will >only make sense to others who have looked into those concepts, You will not be >understood. >This may be a solution.

Believe me, I understand this.  My views in many areas are radically different from the predominant "liberal vs. conservative" dichotomy being pushed by the mass media. Maybe answering a few of these questions would help: Are EF’ers "luddites"?  (still a bit of a vague term) Do you necessarily oppose high-technology in all cases, or do you just want a change in how it’s used? Do you support individual rights/libertarianism? What’s your approach to "value"; where does it come from?  Revelation?  Logic? Utilitarian evaluation?  Also… who is the relative observer?  Man?  God? Who do you think is responsible for more evil: government or private individuals/businesses?  (Government controlled and funded contractors are basically part of government.)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I suggest that those who oppose the industrial revolution study history.  Pay >> particular attention to the continuous inter-tribal warfare of most native >> american and other primitive tribes, and the Orwellian-type religious >> dictatorship that existed in the "civilized" world. ><ETC> >There is a problem here. >When your opinions support or go along with the commonly held view of things, >that which is reiterated time and time again in the mass media, you can make >short statements full of assumptions, which won’t be questioned, as the >assumptions are shared by the majority of people. All that is debated are minor >offshoots. The underlying assumptions are not challenged, they are >unquestioningly accepted as ‘facts’. >But when your view is _radically_ different, you do not have the luxury of the >sound bite. Every sentence needs to be backed up with an explanation, every >concept has behind it dozens of other concepts which, if not included, will >only make sense to others who have looked into those concepts, You will not be >understood. >This may be a solution. > Believe me, I understand this.  My views in many areas are radically different > from the predominant "liberal vs. conservative" dichotomy being pushed by > the mass media. > Maybe answering a few of these questions would help:

I can only really say what I think, no one can speak for the whole movement though we all do make that mistake sometimes, > Are EF’ers "luddites"?  (still a bit of a vague term)

I think some probably are, but there is more to it than that, and the philosophy is evolving. Ludditism, misunderstood as it is, is one of the paradigms that is latched onto, and is not wholly appropriate. > Do you necessarily oppose high-technology in all cases, or do you just want > a change in how it’s used?

All I want is to get general agreement that something is drastically wrong with the course we seem locked into. I don’t have any neat ’solutions and don’t believe I have a right to dictate solutions to 5 billion people. This is where I differ greatly from the mainstream. If we could all just agree on the problem first, without getting bogged down in solutions, we could get on with finding a better course. It often sounds like I’m opposed to any high tech, but this is because the high tech solutions put forward do not take into account the fundamental problems and amount to business as usual. For example the’green revolution’, which seems to just put off starvation for a generation or two as it turns huge areas into deserts. The genetic engineering that is going on now is just an extension of that. The science is subverted to the aims of big business before the scientists themselves have finished investigating what its potential uses and dangers are. We are being railroaded. So I would like to see local solutions rather than global ones. This would involve the dismantling of all those power structures that cause uniformity to emerge where before there was variety. People can solve their problems without ‘help’ from the experts, if those problems are not compounded by outside exploitation. This is as true of farmers in the US corn belt who are being srewed and turned of the land by the banks just as much as those in the third world who grow cash crops for us instead of food and materials to improve their own lot. > Do you support individual rights/libertarianism?

Absolutely, along with the responsibilities that go with it. Our network is made up of completely independent and autonomous local groups. There is consensus on certain things, for example whilst we don’t (and can’t) stop a fascist group from calling themselves EF! They would be completely ignored by the rest of the network and so would not have any succsess. Individuals in groups have an equal right to make suggestions and to say no to anything. There are no leaders, although some individuals do more than others, they have no more power over decisions. > What’s your approach to "value"; where does it come from?  Revelation?  Logic? > Utilitarian evaluation?  Also… who is the relative observer?  Man?  God?

Don’t know really, it’s a personal opinion in the end. I believe that every organism is equally evolved and worthy of respect from a basis of love. This is not a popular concept and people always simplify it to "save the aids virus" or something like that. another example of the commonly held view being easy to argue from. > Who do you think is responsible for more evil: government or private > individuals/businesses?  (Government controlled and funded contractors are > basically part of government.)

In this country the majority of MPs are also top corporation directors so the distinction is not really that useful. I think the main evil is our own profligate consumption, and blaming the directors is not helping. Thet are no more addicted to ‘progress’ than we are. If I was in their situation I would be just as corrupt. It is true when people say it is human nature. I think we must have some kind of soultion that does not involve people being in such positions of great power. Thanks for making me think about this. Andy — IMPORTANT: please change ‘avage’ to ’savage’ in the address before replying. Junk mail proofing against robots. http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html South Downs EF!,  Prior House       6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK

Response:

Filed under: Aids