firehawk12
Subete no aware
I'm sure they'll go into rotation sooner or later. Then again, I don't have TV any more so I can only guess. lol
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
BladeWorker
Member
Has anyone actually seen these on TV? When they dropped the Bob Rae attack ads, I couldn't turn the tv on without stumbling into those ads every five minutes, and yet here, haven't seen it outside of a clip on Power and Politics where they were discussing it.
Ah, the glory of earned media. Imagine never having to do an actual ad buy but having half the country talking about the content of your ad within 36 hours of posting it to youtube.
Of course, I'd still bet money they *have* done an ad buy, but being an exclusively PVR television watcher, now, I don't see the ads.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Worked pretty well to destroy Iggy and Dion anyway.Whats always disgusted me is that they do these attack ads when there is no election to begin with. Besides the fact that they are attack ads.
What a waste of money.
Should be illegal for the government to make attack ads outside of campaign. But then they'd just pay others to do it.
I would take it a step further and have no official party allowed to do this outside of an election period. It lowers the political discourse for the country. BladeWorker, I only wish the public would ignore the ads altogether, or that the same people who end up discussing it on broadly available public forums (ie television and talk radio) would criticize such moves for the blatant garbage they are.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
You know, have the Conservatives done away with public funding to parties yet? At this point, they're still probably the only party that can afford to run ads whenever they want.I would take it a step further and have no official party allowed to do this outside of an election period. It lowers the political discourse for the country. BladeWorker, I only wish the public would ignore the ads altogether, or that the same people who end up discussing it on broadly available public forums (ie television and talk radio) would criticize such moves for the blatant garbage they are.
You know, have the Conservatives done away with public funding to parties yet? At this point, they're still probably the only party that can afford to run ads whenever they want.
It's being phased out. Should run dry in 2014.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I want to laugh at the future of the Liberal Party without the funding. Although, are there still donor limits? If those are uncapped, then we're basically back to pre-Chretrien rules and the Liberals can go back to having thousand dollar dinner parties and crap like that.It's being phased out. Should run dry in 2014.
I suppose the Greens will be hurt the most though.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Bob Rae was smart to leave a sinking ship then!Don't think the caps have changed.
BladeWorker
Member
I would take it a step further and have no official party allowed to do this outside of an election period. It lowers the political discourse for the country. BladeWorker, I only wish the public would ignore the ads altogether, or that the same people who end up discussing it on broadly available public forums (ie television and talk radio) would criticize such moves for the blatant garbage they are.
Why shouldn't a political party run ads about their policies - or what they think of others' policies - outside of a writ period? Are political parties just supposed to disappear between elections?
As much as I despise attack ads that go after people instead of policy, I can't help but wonder what sort of world we live in when we start telling people what and when they can write about in the name of "elevating the public discourse". Stupid people vote. The franchise isn't dependent on your partisanship or an IQ test.
And that besides, the public is growing increasingly cynical - political strategists and ad managers have to walk a careful line with their attack ads, given that good ones work fast and with little ad buy, but bad ones sink you 10% (or worse) in the polls. As the electorate becomes evermore discriminating and cynical, the forces upon strategists to talk more about what resonates than what hurts them may actually prove to elevate the public discourse moreso than any regulation to censor what parties and their hacks are and aren't allowed to say outside of writ periods.
(Though, to be honest, I doubt that what resonates will do anything to elevate the public discourse whatsoever. Even so, I disagree that we ought make out-of-writ political ads illegal in the name of elevating the public discourse. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face.)
Why shouldn't a political party run ads about their policies - or what they think of others' policies - outside of a writ period? Are political parties just supposed to disappear between elections?
No, but I'd rather they spend their resources on participating in governing than the endless campaign. This kind of thing just leads to voter fatigue and raises the importance of private donations (because pre-writ is less regulated than post-writ).
Their record in the House should serve as sufficient campaign.
BladeWorker
Member
No, but I'd rather they spend their resources on participating in governing than the endless campaign. This kind of thing just leads to voter fatigue and raises the importance of private donations (because pre-writ is less regulated than post-writ).
Their record in the House should serve as sufficient campaign.
I don't inherently disagree, but given how much people pay attention to stuff beyond the political headlines (which is to say, they don't), I can understand how political gamesmanship and talking-point-ism comes about.
BladeWorker
Member
All that said, I'd be ok if political parties just disappeared altogether, writ drop or no. Or were severely weakened from their current iron-fist status.
I'm branching here, but that parties and the Parliamentary Executive can rule with an iron fist is essentially the premise of my (admittedly half-thought-out) argument that we ought reform the party system and Parliament before we go about reforming our electoral system.
Both things need to change. I don't think one is really higher priority than the other. And if the "zomg things will never change and now the conservatives will have power for 30 years unless we all pretend hard enough that it's the 90s again" contingent is right (which I don't think they're even remotely close to being), we will never get either change. The CPC is basically a cult of personality at this point centered on Stephen Harper, so they have no interest or desire to relax party discipline, even if it were done evenly to all parties. And their 40% ceiling and lack of sympathetic other parties leaves them extremely vulnerable to a more proportional system.
MyAbsolution
Member
These attack ads and "here are our views" ads that occur when WE DONT HAVE AN ELECTION ANYTIME SOON reek like American political bullshit. All they do is ramp up elections and political strife years in advance and polarize their people.
None of that in my Canada. Thankyou.
None of that in my Canada. Thankyou.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Why shouldn't a political party run ads about their policies - or what they think of others' policies - outside of a writ period? Are political parties just supposed to disappear between elections?
Because we have a democratic institution that allow them to say what they think and debate about it: the parliament.
Ads = costly = financing = corporations and the rich running the parties' guidelines.
Why shouldn't a political party run ads about their policies - or what they think of others' policies - outside of a writ period? Are political parties just supposed to disappear between elections?
As much as I despise attack ads that go after people instead of policy, I can't help but wonder what sort of world we live in when we start telling people what and when they can write about in the name of "elevating the public discourse". Stupid people vote. The franchise isn't dependent on your partisanship or an IQ test.
And that besides, the public is growing increasingly cynical - political strategists and ad managers have to walk a careful line with their attack ads, given that good ones work fast and with little ad buy, but bad ones sink you 10% (or worse) in the polls. As the electorate becomes evermore discriminating and cynical, the forces upon strategists to talk more about what resonates than what hurts them may actually prove to elevate the public discourse moreso than any regulation to censor what parties and their hacks are and aren't allowed to say outside of writ periods.
(Though, to be honest, I doubt that what resonates will do anything to elevate the public discourse whatsoever. Even so, I disagree that we ought make out-of-writ political ads illegal in the name of elevating the public discourse. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face.)
No, attacking a parties policies/record is perfectly fine, during an election. The rest of the remaining three years and change should be spent governing the country, in parliament where they can get their views on policy across. Ushering in a constant stream of such ads does turn people more cynical, I agree with you here. But instead of simply being able to call BS better, it also becomes part of the background noise of daily life people tune out. Fewer people engaged in the political process will always favour the party in power because no one will call them on anything.
I'm all for Parliamentary reform, but electoral reform shouldn't be swept under the carpet in a for-for-the-other strategy
Is it a crime to have citizens informed? Not like people are watching CPAC all day.Because we have a democratic institution that allow them to say what they think and debate about it: the parliament.
BladeWorker
Member
Okay, in this democracy we also have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And insofar as these are rights subject only to the limits of slander, hate speech, fraud, and incitement to other criminal activity, we don't get to pick and choose who's allowed to buy ad space, or have their ads and strategy discussed, and who doesn't.
I may not like it, you may not like it, and it may not be a positive influence on public discourse, but it's a reality.
We don't have the right against being offended by a political party's ad buys. We don't have monopolies on what constitutes appropriate ideas and thoughts for public discourse. And, it's not up to any political party to say that something is OK for public discourse at certain times and not others.
As soon as we become the arbiters of what political ideas are appropriate for public airing and what are not, we become our own worst enemies.
I may not like it, you may not like it, and it may not be a positive influence on public discourse, but it's a reality.
We don't have the right against being offended by a political party's ad buys. We don't have monopolies on what constitutes appropriate ideas and thoughts for public discourse. And, it's not up to any political party to say that something is OK for public discourse at certain times and not others.
As soon as we become the arbiters of what political ideas are appropriate for public airing and what are not, we become our own worst enemies.
Zombie James
Banned
So the copyright bill got royal assent earlier tonight. Idiot Harper thinks he's protecting his corporate buddies but all it'll do is push people towards piracy and second-hand purchases. If I can't buy an Amazon e-book and put it on my Kobo, I have no reason to I buy it in the first place. If I can't rip my DVD collection to my home server and stream it to my other devices, why bother buying movies? All Bill C-11 did was ensure that I never buy any new media ever again. I'll rip what I have now and that'll be the end of it as far as movies go (thanks to Netflix, this isn't so bad). Buying new e-books is out of the question, and even though most music is DRM-free I don't give a fuck, not buying any new music, either. Sonic Boom and BMV are going to get some extra business from me, that's for sure.
Is it a crime to have citizens informed? Not like people are watching CPAC all day.
are you joking? you think that's what these ads actually do? inform people?
Okay, in this democracy we also have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And insofar as these are rights subject only to the limits of slander, hate speech, fraud, and incitement to other criminal activity, we don't get to pick and choose who's allowed to buy ad space, or have their ads and strategy discussed, and who doesn't.
I may not like it, you may not like it, and it may not be a positive influence on public discourse, but it's a reality.
We don't have the right against being offended by a political party's ad buys. We don't have monopolies on what constitutes appropriate ideas and thoughts for public discourse. And, it's not up to any political party to say that something is OK for public discourse at certain times and not others.
As soon as we become the arbiters of what political ideas are appropriate for public airing and what are not, we become our own worst enemies.
Just to be clear, in Canada freedom of speech isn't anywhere near absolute, or even as minorly diluted as you portray here. The government may violate section 2 of the charter for fairly vaguely defined reasons defined in charter section 1. Hate speech and slander are examples of how those criteria have been applied, they are not explicit charter exceptions. There are many more examples than those you list as well.
Campaign financing law in general, including the rules about what can and can't be done in the writ, are also examples of the application of those tests. It may be that an attempt to broaden those rules to the inter-writ periods would not pass that test, but I don't think that assertion can be proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Oakes_test
BladeWorker
Member
Cabinet Shuffle! Not nearly as widespread as speculated!
Can't say I'm surprised, but I'm a little underwhelmed.
Oh, also, that Etobicoke Centre kerfuffle is going to the Supreme Court next week.
Any bets on whether the SCC will uphold the Superior Court ruling and require a by-election in the riding?
Can't say I'm surprised, but I'm a little underwhelmed.
Oh, also, that Etobicoke Centre kerfuffle is going to the Supreme Court next week.
Any bets on whether the SCC will uphold the Superior Court ruling and require a by-election in the riding?
Why shouldn't a political party run ads about their policies - or what they think of others' policies - outside of a writ period? Are political parties just supposed to disappear between elections?
As much as I despise attack ads that go after people instead of policy, I can't help but wonder what sort of world we live in when we start telling people what and when they can write about in the name of "elevating the public discourse". Stupid people vote. The franchise isn't dependent on your partisanship or an IQ test.
The frsutrationg thing is that it really isn't the conservatives that are to blame for putting ads out (that I beleive work incidentally); it really is up to the population to get a grip, get informed, get educated and learn to give a damn about being manipulated out of their quality of life, or, at least least cognisant that their standard of life is dependednt on compromising their children's standard of living.
It is not a hate commercial to know that Harper was part of the young facists of Canada, he was proud of it at the time...but no one remembers...we need to see a video of this time to remember his roots, where he came from and to cross reference if his policies mirror the young facists or not....is he really the diplomatic, economy boosting diplomat?
Take Corrections for example, i have worked in CSC for 15 years and all other governments made promises like, yes we will get "tough on crime"...what that really means was irrelevant, as the politicians had no clue what corrections was all about as they were never educated in criminology, even as lawyers, and left it up to the researchers and experts to guide policy in Corrections. Harper is different..it is clear that he is trying hard to actually push through and do promises he has made so that it seems like he is actually doing the promises, agaisnt the better judgement of science...but he can't do the impossible and build more prisons....he has actually cut all Federal programs including COrrections and RCMP and as such, not only are no prisons being built, we had ot close two in order to get uderbudget this year and similar cuts will come ithe next two years. Once he got in, and then got the majority, he was determined to cut all social programs and promoted oil and that's what he is doing. I thinkit will be recived very well that he is trimming the "FAT" in the public service, as the economy is more important etc. we need jobs and oil gives jobs......menawhile the real issue is that our overall quality of life will suffer....instead of working in the publuic sector for common good, we will be forced into the private sector and our standarad of living will go down under the promise that it will be going up. I wsih I had the energy to dig up a link, but basically macroeconmics research pretty much agrees that the ideal "goldie-locks" zone for wealth is a smaller disparity between rich and poor, those nations that have a large disparity, africa, mexico, central america, have the lowest standard of living. Intersetingly, the US has a bery high disparity, albeit skewed by a ridiculously wealthy upper limit, and a realtively less than porr like africa but still poor lower class......Canada used to be one the least disparate states in teh world, but we are going in the wrong direction fast with Harper.
Bottom line is the people that really know what's going on, like sicentists and the educated, are the minority, so no matter how you dress up the commercials to be more ethical, the only way to win the election is to appeal to those that are uneducated, willing to sell the farm for jobs jobs jobs, willing to harm the envirnment and long term stability for NOW now now, and so on...not really complex actually.
the only reference I could find on spur of the moment search that was still pretty balanced was the wiki, start your search there and branch into health policy etc. US has a tonne of links on the whole topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality
Cabinet Shuffle! Not nearly as widespread as speculated!
Can't say I'm surprised, but I'm a little underwhelmed.
Oh, also, that Etobicoke Centre kerfuffle is going to the Supreme Court next week.
Any bets on whether the SCC will uphold the Superior Court ruling and require a by-election in the riding?
I had expected it to be wider, but am disgusted Fantino is now Minister of International Cooperation.
It is not a hate commercial to know that Harper was part of the young facists of Canada, he was proud of it at the time...but no one remembers...
Say what?
BladeWorker
Member
Young Liberals, perhaps.
Yeah that's the closest I could find. What good would airing that mildly smelly laundry do? Is someone offended that he was a liberal when he was a teenager going to go vote Liberal or NDP because of it? Never mind that he left the Liberals over NEP, which is pretty much what every other liberal in Alberta did at the time anyways.
Yeah that's the closest I could find. What good would airing that mildly smelly laundry do? Is someone offended that he was a liberal when he was a teenager going to go vote Liberal or NDP because of it? Never mind that he left the Liberals over NEP, which is pretty much what every other liberal in Alberta did at the time anyways.
He'd always seemed more ashamed of his time spent in Toronto. Like it makes him less authentic being from that city.
Canada's PM Stephen Harper faces revolt by scientists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/canada-stephen-harper-revolt-scientists?CMP=twt_gu
Man fuck this anti-science government.
Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, faces a widening revolt by the country's leading scientists against sweeping cuts to government research labs and broadly pro-industry policies.
The scientists plan to march through Ottawa in white lab coats on Tuesday in the second big protest in a month against the Harper government's science and environmental agenda.
Harper is accused of pushing through a slew of policies weakening or abolishing environmental protections – with an aim of expanding development of natural resources such as the Alberta tar sands.
His government is also accused of jeopardising Canada's scientific reputation by shutting down the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), a research station that produced critical evidence to help stop acid rain.
"In my view there are a lot of attempts in this country, and other countries too, to push through resource-based economies," said Prof John Smol, a freshwater lake biologist at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. "People working at ELA are constantly finding reasons why you can't just put a pipeline here, or an industry there, because there are going to be environmental costs."
Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, was even more pointed. "It's not about saving money. It's about imposing ideology," he said. "What's happening here is that the government has an ideological agenda to develop the Canadian economy based on the extraction of oil out of the Alberta tar sands as quickly as possible and sell it as fast as it can, come hell and high water, and eliminate any barriers that stand in their way."
However, a spokeswoman for Gary Goodyear, the minister of state for science and technology, said the government remained committed to funding science. "Our government has made historic investments in science, technology and research to create jobs, grow our economy, and improve the quality of life for Canadians," she said.
But Canadian government officials also indirectly confirmed scientists' charges that Harper was far more interested in funding research with direct industry applications, than in funding pure science or environmental research.
"As a country we have been lagging behind our peer nations on applied research and commercialisation and our government is taking steps to correct that," the official said.
The official provided a list of new projects supported by the government. Among the largest was $105m for marketing forest products.
The showdown between the government and scientists was set late last month by the passage of a budget bill that weakened or abolished scores of environmental laws.
The government claims the cuts are intended to shift more resources towards monitoring development of the Alberta tar sands, the core of Harper's economic strategy.
Critics say the changes gut the country's strongest environmental law, the Canadian Fisheries Act, by easing earlier requirements on mining and other industries to protect fish habitat.
In addition, the C-38 budget bill cut dozens of jobs for government scientists, scrapped research projects, and pollution control programmes. It abolished the unit in charge of monitoring emissions from power plants, furnaces, boilers and other sources, for a net saving of about $600,000.
It cut funding entirely for two-well established bodies: the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, an advisory panel, and the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science, which awards research grants. It also cut other research grant programmes.
The Harper government has clashed regularly with environmental groups over its strategy of developing the tar sands and shipping the oil to America and China.
Earlier this year, the natural resources minister, Joe Oliver, accused foreign radicals and "jet-setting celebrities" of trying to hijack the country, by opposing development of the tar sands.
The government has also directed the tax authorities to investigate the funding of environmental groups.
There were protests, too, when government scientists were banned from speaking to media without an official "minder", and when news of the cost-cutting proposals first trickled out.
More than 500 groups took their websites down for 24 hours last month in protest at the budget cuts, which they claim were an excuse to weaken environmental protections.
But the cuts that seem to have galvanised the protests on Tuesday was the government's decision to shut down the Experimental Lakes Area in March 2013.
"It's a culmination of all of the cuts to government science and environment," said Diane Orihel, a PhD candidate at the University of Alberta, leading the campaign to save the labs. "The ELA is one small little morsel in a much broader problem." But she added: "We are starting to see momentum."
Since the decision first trickled out – as a government leak – the Harper government has faced widening criticism in Canadian media.
Scientists say the closure, due in March 2013, would rob researchers of a rare chance to conduct science on a real-life scale – not just in a laboratory flask, said Smol.
Over the years, it has provided critical evidence on the causes of acid rain, and the effects on fish and their habitats of dumping fertilisers, detergents, or mercury.
"Any water quality problem we have on the planet, the research started out there," Smol said. "I think we need that information to get solid policy to deal with our environmental problems."
The government argues it can no longer afford the research station, which costs about $2m a year to run.
Critics dismiss that argument, pointing to the Harper government's promotion of the Alberta tar sands and its opposition to the Kyoto protocol agreements on climate change.
"The Harper government is the most environmentally hostile one we have ever had in Canada. Harper pulled Canada out of the Kyoto protocol, gutted the Fisheries Act (our strongest freshwater protection law), and hollowed out our environmental assessment legislation, making it easier for extractive industries to get licences to exploit," said Maude Barlow, a former UN advisor on water and chair of the Council of Canadians. "It is heartlessly shutting down a programme that costs very little to run given the incredible benefits it brings, in order to silence the voices who speak for water."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/canada-stephen-harper-revolt-scientists?CMP=twt_gu
Man fuck this anti-science government.
Zombie James
Banned
Making news in the UK for all the wrong reasons.
Making news in the UK for all the wrong reasons.
That it's not making news here is the worst part.
ProfessorMoran
Member
Canada's PM Stephen Harper faces revolt by scientists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/canada-stephen-harper-revolt-scientists?CMP=twt_gu
Man fuck this anti-science government.
Isn't this more along the lines of being anti-"environmental"-science? If they want to develop the tar sands, then let them develop the tar sands.
Isn't this more along the lines of being anti-"environmental"-science? If they want to develop the tar sands, then let them develop the tar sands.
Seriously? This is like the equivalent of saying "Hey screw the naysayers, let's build that nuclear plant on the fault line, who gives a shit."
Isn't this more along the lines of being anti-"environmental"-science? If they want to develop the tar sands, then let them develop the tar sands.
They've already stated they'll close programs and organizations that they ideologically don't agree with, so the blanket 'science' isn't incorrect.
ProfessorMoran
Member
Seriously? This is like the equivalent of saying "Hey screw the naysayers, let's build that nuclear plant on the fault line, who gives a shit."
While you're at it, you might as well equate this to people dumping radioactive waste in pristine lakes and taking hunting spears and impaling barney the dinosaur, the teletubbies and dora the explorer.
We're talking about tar sands and not nuclear energy.
They've already stated they'll close programs and organizations that they ideologically don't agree with, so the blanket 'science' isn't incorrect.
Why don't they instead give MORE money to people who publish journals opposing their government initiative of making use of Canada's natural resources?
While you're at it, you might as well equate this to people dumping radioactive waste in pristine lakes and taking hunting spears and impaling barney the dinosaur, the teletubbies and dora the explorer.
We're talking about tar sands and not nuclear energy.
You miss the point. It's not about nuclear energy or whatever. It's about ignoring any actual empirical evidence of possible environmental damage or sustainability in lieu of just propping up the resource industry.
If these resource initiatives were well conceived, they wouldn't require censorship and protection from the government.
Im ok with this. Time to put your efforts into something else scientists.Canada's PM Stephen Harper faces revolt by scientists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/canada-stephen-harper-revolt-scientists?CMP=twt_gu
Man fuck this anti-science government.
But Canadian government officials also indirectly confirmed scientists' charges that Harper was far more interested in funding research with direct industry applications, than in funding pure science or environmental research.
"As a country we have been lagging behind our peer nations on applied research and commercialisation and our government is taking steps to correct that," the official said.
ProfessorMoran
Member
You miss the point. It's not about nuclear energy or whatever. It's about ignoring any actual empirical evidence of possible environmental damage or sustainability in lieu of just propping up the resource industry.
Oil, coal and natural gas are dirty, anything you drill or mine, it's going to funk up the environment a bit, I think people know that. HUMAN BEINGS are dirty motherfuckers, our existence in itself endangers the goddamn planet, we're constantly multiplying, we dump our shit everywhere, WE'RE not sustainable, at some point you can either decide to off yourself for the sake of mother nature or just say "fuck it, let's start hunting dolphins".
Oil, coal and natural gas are dirty, anything you drill or mine, it's going to funk up the environment a bit, I think people know that. HUMAN BEINGS are dirty motherfuckers, our existence in itself endangers the goddamn planet, WE'RE not sustainable, at some point you can either decide to off yourself or just say "fuck it, let's start hunting dolphins".
What the fuck? So we should just exploit everything until we kill ourselves? Fuck our children and all our future generations eh? It's not as if there aren't alternative cleaner solutions.
ProfessorMoran
Member
What the fuck? So we should just exploit everything until we kill ourselves? Fuck our children and all our future generations eh? It's not as if there aren't alternative cleaner solutions.
Do you support nuclear energy?
Maybe that's what the scientists should focus on, developing methods of extracting fossil fuels cleanly and effectively to help Albertans make use of their natural resources.
Do you support nuclear energy?
Maybe that's what the scientists should focus on, developing methods of extracting fossil fuels cleanly and effectively to help Albertans make use of their natural resources.
Of course, nuclear energy is one of the best options we have. Scientists should focus on those things, but we should also have environmental studies as well. They function as important checks and balances against sheer short term profitability overriding all reason.
Lets use up the cheaper alternative first.What the fuck? So we should just exploit everything until we kill ourselves? Fuck our children and all our future generations eh? It's not as if there aren't alternative cleaner solutions.
Lets use up the cheaper alternative first.
We can do that, but we can also do that safely. How are we supposed to know possible effects on the environment if we don't even perform any studies? Nevermind not letting scientists speak negatively against these projects at all.
ProfessorMoran
Member
We can do that, but we can also do that safely. How are we supposed to know possible effects on the environment if we don't even perform any studies? Nevermind not letting scientists speak negatively against these projects at all.
We are doing that already. Humans have been drilling for how long? More than a century?
Hours Left
Member
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Oct. 2015 can't come soon enough.
We are doing that already. We've been drilling for how long? More than a century?
We have been conducting scientific studies for how long? I believe the NRC is nearing it's 100 year anniversary.
Oil, coal and natural gas are dirty, anything you drill or mine, it's going to funk up the environment a bit, I think people know that. HUMAN BEINGS are dirty motherfuckers, our existence in itself endangers the goddamn planet, we're constantly multiplying, we dump our shit everywhere, WE'RE not sustainable, at some point you can either decide to off yourself for the sake of mother nature or just say "fuck it, let's start hunting dolphins".
So basically, you think that it's got to be one or the other. This is why science is required- to avoid blanket absolute calls because one isn't educated enough. There is such a thing is a compromise.
Frankly, this kind of attitude makes me believe that it'd be better off if human beings were completely eradicated. As the (allegedly) most intelligent species on the planet it is our duty to ensure research be continually done for the sake of compromises and sustainability. Every other creature in the wild that is part of the ecosystem has found a balance and they aren't not nearly as intelligent as humans.
In reality it is matter of money. Lots of money. And the idea that we can't forgo certain luxuries that have now become synonymous with convenience.
Simple truth of the matter is this: If we destroy the ecosystem that we'll be only hastening the extinction of human species. The earth will keep on existing as a rocky planet. So it's not about saving the planet as much as it is about saving ourselves from our current unsustainable practices.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.