|is it just me or is it getting hotter outside in the winter ?|
All of these sorts of questions are today considered part of 'environmentalism'. This movement has existed to varying degrees since, at least, the time of Thomas Jefferson in the 1700's, but examples can also be cited earlier. In the cases of the early environmentalists they were very often those who were, by-and-large, already considered to be 'natural philosophers', mathemetitians, statistitians, 'natural scientists', alchemists, managers of ports or civic works, etc. The percentage of the populations employed in these vocations was small.
|just look at all that profit on the wind !|
The very great majority of people were of a more peasantly stock and so had very little such concern. Even among the aristocracy, until the renaissance, very little lay-science was made available outside personal erudition or invitational conferences. The World Expo's, begun in earnest around the 1840's, was the beginning of wider public scientific awareness. Please take a moment and reflect on that... the public has only been exposed to 'modern science' for 150 years. At the onset, virtually nothing of science was concerned with 'environmentalism' as we conceive of it today. Quite the opposite. This was the age of industrialization. The greatest mechanical advances usually had quite dire environmental consequences for the people and the planet, but the awareness of chemistry and pollution as concepts was very little possessed by the people.
|I'm pretty sure the poop in the water is making people sick.... hmmm...|
We might do well again to consider that it was until even more recently that we were able to argue against science even when it came to things like cigarettes, which effectively pollute the body. There were clear, visible and scientific links between smoking and throat irritation, for example, but we see that the profit motive and the general lack of scientific awareness in the public (meaning citizens, judges, doctors even, etc.,) allowed smoking to continue under a cloak of 'is it or isn't it bad for you??' for many more years than today seems appropriate. I am not arguing against a persons right to choose to smoke, only that we cannot pretend that our lung-butter is unrelated... scientifically.
|take two of these with some alcohol, call me tonight, sugar-tits !|
I feel the situation with environmental awareness is somewhat similar. One of the greatest tactics of distraction I have noticed, is the usage of the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change'. Both of these are keywords - neurologically designed and deployed - to cause confusion and distraction from the cornerstone issue of POLLUTION.
Is the planet getting warmer ? Maybe, but who cares? What does that give or take away from the already substantial arguments against the poisoning of our people and planet for financial gain of a small few ?
Is global warming man made ? Who cares ? Maybe the planet has cool and warm periods... how are we doing on the whole "combating pollution" thing ?
You see, by framing the discussion in terms of 'everyones fault' or 'global cycles' they seem to be laying the roadwork for a non-corporate-liable 'carbon tax' whereby you and I pay an extra environmental fee on just about everything. It seems this will take the guise of a global levy. I don't want to digress too far here, but basically they are very skillfully changing the narrative of these issues completely. Instead of working hard to enact binding pollution controls of profit-producing corporations that operate in our nations and/or around the globe; we are getting ready to make the victims pay the surcharge for pollution-based environmental damages.
|but I already paid to pay ! :<|
Imagine a medieval Lord. He provides food for your family. At some point the people, in public, discover that the food provided is causing ailment. Naturally, one would hope for a free remedy as this has happened out of ones control, against ones self and family... instead the Lord continues to supply the rotten goods, but also starts charging money for a placebo-based cure for the condition they have themselves created. Additional levy may also here be made against the people to help with additional costs of removing their dead, etc, which the state must bear during this 'crisis'.
While I am sure something akin to this likely happened in history, in a democracy - even one run through representatives - the government obviously should not take this path. In a democracy, we assume, the people discover this issue and the state works to quickly find a different source of food, as well as providing cures to the population at no or minimal cost. Additionally, in a well-run democracy, the citizens might make levy on the gov't for reparations where fault may be found and recompense due.
|I ask you, should we not remove the poop from out the waters ?|
I apologize for the voyage to a cruder time, but it seems a most apt example here. In this democratic western world we inhabit, it seems outrageous to me that corporations and mining operations, (etc.,) all so easily evade appropriate payment for their substantial gains. These corporations have ruined significant sections of the world and have paid the very least of damages. Entire cities, peoples and ecosystems are destroyed and fines are given. Fines which are not damaging or effective deterrence for these types of offences. We know this because all the worst offenders still exist and still drive massive profits.
At this point, we are already buying 30% of our own garbage back through recycling programs - which generally have very little environmental impact but help boost bottom-lines for corporations very significantly. We have virtually no jobs in production left because instead of investing in cleaner technologies 40 years ago, we decided to invest in the capitalists pocket-lining instead.
|or you could buy one nice glass bottle and do a little planning with your life.|
Environmental hazards now abound. We are told we will have to pay much more for foods in the coming years because of environmental anomalies, which we assume are caused by POLLUTION. WE pay pay pay and the issues are no closer to being resolved, wealth inequality grows, opportunities diminish and the corporations get bigger and badder and richer every day.
Is the planet getting hotter ? Take some time today and calculate out what pollution-based environmental damages exist in your own area. Consider well that there are few jobs and well paying unions today because those jobs are all moved to areas where pollution is more easily produced and afforded by the companies that we prop up every day with our dollar-votes. If you do a proper tally you can pretty quickly see that the amount of environmental damages against you is close to the amount you owe in fines for pirating media content...
I guess they got ya coming and going...