About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 10:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'll be blazing every room light, floodlight, flashlight and candle I've got for this. (It is kind of them, and romantically suitable, that they let us be the ones to put lights on rather than  turn them off!)
I'm thinking of how I might aim our autos's headlights upwards--park on a steep slope, to maximize the effect, maybe? Does upward matter?  Can't build a bonfire here, regulations.
Also, I went to that make-the-human-race-extinct site. Words fail me.


Post 1

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mindy, Ed, me too! Four hours and 8 minutes till all lights on.

Post 2

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's time now, and my lights are burning!
Mindy


Post 3

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 6:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No body turned their lights off here - lol... neighborhood looks as bright as always, perhaps more so...

Post 4

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My neighborhood too, Robert. For a moment, I thought, wow, all my neighbors are Objectivists! Not.
While I kept the home lights burning--literally--family went out to dinner. They looked to see if lights were on or off, and could find nothing out of the usual.
I got a nice little conspiratorial buzz from the exercize.
On to the books!


Post 5

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 7:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually, we were all celebrating Human Achievement Hours ;-)

http://cei.org/human-achievement-hour

Post 6

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It came. It went. And no-one noticed.

I had heard about this in some blurb in the newspaper. Maybe some newscasts might have mentioned it, although none I've seen. Didn't realize it was for tonight, and really didn't care.

I am concerned though, only that some things tend to be over-exaggerated to the point of misrepresentation, and I think that has happened here in Ed's post. There is a natural tendency, when one objects to something, to try to read more bad thing into it, to further demonize it, than is truly accurate. I'd ascribe almost none of the motives Ed's article assigns to this event. To me, some well meaning, but misinformed people wanted to voice their fears (fed by the press, fed by pseudo-environmentalists, and fed by government) in protest... by sitting around in the dark.

Certainly, there is at least some reason to be concerned about global warming, but as certainly, there is greater to fear from the panicky and self destructive policies that might be thrown up without the benefit of serious thought or science.

There is nothing wrong in anyone trying to raise awareness of environmental issues, and these should never just be dismissed out-of-hand. What is really important is to see that such concerns are kept focussed on real science, and that environmentally-related actions are kept in context with real world individual rights and needs.

jt

Post 7

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 7:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You are perfectly right, Jay, but you didn't do my buzz any good.

Post 8

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 8:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Have some more sangria...;-)

Post 9

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 8:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My lights are all on. But it feels like too tiny a thing - not registering on the social scale and, since I'm sure it isn't being noticed, it ends up too silly to have much psychological satisfaction.

But the tea parties and the growing mentions of Atlas Shrugged, and the anger I sense at grass roots level towards congress - those are registering. They are noticed. I've seen Yaron Brook more in recent weeks than in the previous years - he was on Fox News tonight.

Post 10

Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 8:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
like a snowball rolling down the hill - gathering momentum and increasing in size...;-)

Post 11

Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 9:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"There is a natural tendency, when one objects to something, to try to read more bad thing into it, to further demonize it, than is truly accurate."

And this was not one of them. The E-surance commercial is a good example. The lights of the world go out, except one. The character says, "Someone is still in the dark about Earth Hour." And TURNS THE LIGHT OUT VIA REMOTE CONTROL. You tell me the implications...

As one poster quipped on youtube, "I hope nobody was on life support!"




Post 12

Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Let them eat soot.

jt

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, March 30, 2009 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This satellite night photo of the South and North Korea most graphically illustrates the implications of those anti-human environmentalists. The caption should read:

 

North Korea celebrates ‘Earth Hour’ every hour, every night.”

 

Korea-night.jpg Korea night photo picture by edwhudgins



Post 14

Monday, March 30, 2009 - 9:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I guess we know where Kim's palace is now.

Post 15

Monday, March 30, 2009 - 10:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's great, Ed. Send that to the White House.
Mindy


Post 16

Monday, March 30, 2009 - 2:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jay – As I say in my piece, “No doubt most individuals who turn off their lights will not see their actions as a choice of death over life. And the logic of bad ideas often is offset by other ideas, habits, and traditions. After all, few environmentalists actually live according to their own creed. Not many people actually try to surrender civilization with its jet travel, iPhones, Starbucks, and Whole Foods.”

 

But as I explained on Objectivist Living, my broader point is with the logical consequences of this intrinsic view of the value of the environment. The more people take seriously the notion that the Earth has a value above and beyond its value to humans—enjoying forests because they’re pleasant to walk in or cutting their trees for lumber—the more we will see of the pathologies I highlight in the piece: a self-torturing asceticism; calls for population reduction, government thugs enforcing environmental dictates. And the threats are immediate.

Further, those threats are based on taking seriously wrong ideas such as the intrinsic value of the environment. By the time these ideas are ingrained in a large part of the population—with young people who’ve been brainwashed becoming adult voters, politicians, journalists, teachers—it will be too late to stop the threat for a generation.

 

We need to paint a stark picture now before we reach the point of no easy return. Think of all the evils that are being foisted on us by politicians that would have been unthinkable 20-30 years ago. It’s over time that ideas and values are changed, for better or worse, preparing the ground for what’s to come politically. Several decades ago a $2 trillion “cap-and-trade” tax would have been laughed at by Democrats as well as Republicans. Now, because of the fuzzy thinking and propaganda on global warming, it could well become law.

 

You’re right that it is important to encourage critical thinking and focus on the merits of the science of the global warming debate. That will cause a lot of people whose values are not corrupted or, perhaps, are mixed up but not too badly, to back off support for draconian policies.

 

And there’s nothing wrong with having intelligent discussions about the environment in terms of sound public policy. There’s been a lot of good work done in this area on the property rights approach.

 

But we must be certain to always relate these discussions to human good. We should say to people that “You don’t want your kids growing up in a world choking on smoke but you don’t want them growing up in world literally moving backwards, with built-in reductions of living standards and with a philosophy that makes them feel guilty for being a productive human.”


Post 17

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And to show that the danger is real, consider this: Whether or not to have children is a very personal matter. Don't want kids. Fine! But it's truly a manifestation of the spiritual sickness of the environmentalists if someone really wants to have a family but decides not to because it would harm the environment. Here's another form of guilt these moral midgets are spreading.

"Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-...o-friendly.html

Post 18

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 2:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Strange stories. I have difficulty believing that the motives they've cited are necessarily the true motives. However, if that is truly how they think, then they have probably done the world a favor by not polluting the genetic pool.

There is always the conceit that one's child might become someone who could make significant contributions to a cause dear to them. This attitude seems to suggest that they presume to raise a child of no worth - just a moocher. Strangely depressing view for any potential parent to adopt.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 3/31, 8:22pm)


Post 19

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 3:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That conclusion seems to flow naturally once a person has accepted the essential tenet of the green movement. That man is of no value when compared with the "earth".

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.