Freedom & The Environment (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

Let's assume for a moment that everything claimed by anthropogenic global warming theory proponents is entirely valid i.e. humans are causing global warming through greenhouse gas emissions and that unless emissions are reduced there will be severe environmental consequences etc etc
(I'm not making a claim either way here. This topic is not about whether it is valid or not.)

This being the case, what considerations, if any, should be given to individual liberty?
Should people have the right to carry out actions that contribute to global warming?
Should any legislation necessary to stop global warming be passed, regardless of the freedoms revoked in the process?
Should a "happy medium" be reached? Will doing this be adequate for saving the environment?

Keep in mind that to *actually* stop agw you would need DRASTIC changes i.e. not token efforts of 5% over twenty years (or whatever idk).


tl;dr: What is more important: The environment or liberty?

 

[luv2luvurmama]

Liberty above all.

I did your mum for breakfast!!! she got pwned
Oh, yeah.. uhm.. liberty... yeah... its.... nice... yeah..awesome

 

[SylviaB]

well obviously

but I'm interested in what non-freedom lovers have to say, and the extent to which they believe liberty is unimportant.

I did your mum for breakfast!!! she got pwned
Oh, yeah.. uhm.. liberty... yeah... its.... nice... yeah..awesome

this is why we can't have nice things

 

[Fish Tank]

I want the freedom to drive Hummers.

 

[murphyad]

Environment.

 

[SylviaB]

Environment.

okay cool, but do you think that ANY means justify saving the environment?

 

[Garygaz]

We should let the Greens take government and decide that for us.

 

[postnatal]

Earth Hour is probably the biggest environmental BS i can think of, the act itself pretty much says we should be getting rid of all technology. In a decade who knows, they might even make a grand gesture like that mandatory. Alternatives are available but people either don't care or see the change of lifestyle too much effort.

Really the only thing you could do which is already being done (although to little effect) is to educate.

 

[bio_nut]

okay cool, but do you think that ANY means justify saving the environment?

Pretty much. I'm all for culling a large percentage of the population to save the planet, people are too fucking stupid to be entitled to boundless personal liberty.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Pretty much. I'm all for culling a large percentage of the population to save the planet, people are too fucking stupid to be entitled to boundless personal liberty.

But people are smart enough to elect wise leaders to make decisions for them that they themselves are too stupid to make.

 

[bio_nut]

But people are smart enough to elect wise leaders to make decisions for them that they themselves are too stupid to make.

Haha, fuck no.


The environment loses either way.

 

[zombie omie jay]

intelligence is relative yo

 

[bio_nut]

I notice only dumb people tend to say that.

Please don't be one of them.

 

[zombie omie jay]

ok but it is true?

someone with a 110 iq might think that people with an iq below 90 should be culled
someone with a 140iq might think that people with an iq below 110 should be culled

etc

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Let's assume for a moment that everything claimed by anthropogenic global warming theory proponents is entirely valid i.e. humans are causing global warming through greenhouse gas emissions and that unless emissions are reduced there will be severe environmental consequences etc etc
(I'm not making a claim either way here. This topic is not about whether it is valid or not.)

This being the case, what considerations, if any, should be given to individual liberty?
Should people have the right to carry out actions that contribute to global warming?
Should any legislation necessary to stop global warming be passed, regardless of the freedoms revoked in the process?
Should a "happy medium" be reached? Will doing this be adequate for saving the environment?

Keep in mind that to *actually* stop agw you would need DRASTIC changes i.e. not token efforts of 5% over twenty years (or whatever idk).


tl;dr: What is more important: The environment or liberty?

to answer you seriously as a die hard libertarian there would not be any intervention from government that would affect my liberty on how much green house gas i produce. if the general populous is serious about global warming they will boycott those who produce large quantities of it and seek alternatives.

 

[zombie omie jay]

people who suggest such a thing will likely consider themselves intelligent (yourself for example) whereas someone more intelligent than you might consider you quite unintelligent?

 

[SylviaB]

.

do you know of any AC mechanisms that could (in theory) effectively deal with environmental issues such as this?

 

[bio_nut]

people who suggest such a thing will likely consider themselves intelligent (yourself for example) whereas someone more intelligent than you might consider you quite unintelligent?

Ok, let's just kill all people who don't care about the environment. Then we have a good mix of people left, particularly wankers. It's all lose, lose, lose.

 

[zombie omie jay]

wouldnt killing people who dont care about the environment (through either ignorance or just plain stupidity) lead to less wankers ( or dumb cunts) because if you arent smart enough to realise the importance/significance of climate change and its effects then you are actually really dumb?

 

[postnatal]

But then you have the people who go around pretending they know what they're talking about?