The movie Fern Gully really pisses me off, its hypocritical BS

[Vesayen]

I am a big enviromentalist, but the movie is hypocritical bull****. They advocate completley ignoring the neccesity of south american workers to actually earn a living.

YEY! Lets save the trees and let people starve, GOOD idea!

"Out here in the fields" is not about the enviroment, its about the plight of south american workers.......


Man I hate that movie.

[Asher]

I really hate sensationalist thread titles.

[chequita guevara]

I've never seen Fern Gully but your argument applies equally well to every attempt to stop environmental destruction.

I know you have a hard time understanding certain concepts so I'll try and make this as simple as possible.

No environment = no jobs.

[Vesayen]

There is a balance between preserving the enviroment, and economic neccesity.

I place that balance *FAR* more on the enviroment side then the world does at the moment.

We need the enviroment, but we also need people to be able to support themselves.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I've never seen Fern Gully

It's only a children's cartoon.

[DRoseDARs]

Slash-and-Burning rainforests is NOT sound environmental nor economic policy...

[chequita guevara]

I don't think there should be a balance between destroying our environment and the economy. We permanently sacrifice the future for temporary gain in the present, and that's not a good trade. We've pretty much pushed the envorinment as far as we can without really screwing ourselves over. If that means some folks have to do without, so the rest of us don't die, well, that's too bad. I'm not sacrificing the future of our speicies for a handful of lumberjacks.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by General Ludd



It's only a children's cartoon.

It's "only" propoganda.

[chequita guevara]

Everything is propaganda.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't think there should be a balance between destroying our environment and the economy. We permanently sacrifice the future for temporary gain in the present, and that's not a good trade. We've pretty much pushed the envorinment as far as we can without really screwing ourselves over. If that means some folks have to do without, so the rest of us don't die, well, that's too bad. I'm not sacrificing the future of our speicies for a handful of lumberjacks.

How would you feel if you were one of those lumberjacks :?

We can take from the enviroment, as long as we do so at permanently sustainable rates.

[chequita guevara]

So you think it's okay for companies to pollute because to stop them from doing so would cost jobs? That's your basic argument. If jobs are cost, **** the environment, our grandchildren can choke on our filth.

We aren't talking about permanently sustainable use of the forests, Vesayen, and even bringing that up just shows you are either a tool or a liar. Either way, you don't look good. What we are watching is not the sustainable use of the forest, but the wholesale destruction of the forest and its replacement with cattle farms which turn to desert within a few years.

[Vesayen]

Did I say that? I said, how would you feel if you starved because of enviromental conservation?

I used to say the exact same thing you are saying now.

It's a big problem. The solution is a massive re-distribution of wealth ####ing over those in power to shift the global economy to a permanetly sustainable form(impossible-never happen heh),

[:) Smiley]

Animal lovers have indeed hijacked this country's primary education system.

The US pet industry is 0.25% of the entire economy.

For comparison, cars are 4%. Agriculture is 0.9%.

[Vesayen]

Source on those statistics?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Did I say that? I said, how would you feel if you starved because of enviromental conservation?

Nobody would ever starve because of environmental conservation, they would starve because no one gives a **** about them. There's food enough for everyone, we just feel it's more important to have food to throw away than to feed to unemployed south americans.


You're confusing the problem. The issue is not about what these people are supposed to do if they can't rape their land anymore, but why they have to rape it, and ultimately destroy their future, in the first place.