Prosecuting “Future Crimes”
James
The �World Future Council� has recently issued a press release stating
�Crimes against Future Generations need to become taboo� (pdf), with a
lead sentence that states the following: �How can we prevent and
prosecute activites today that severely threaten the living conditions
and health of those living in the future?�
Does this sound sinister to you? If you don�t buy into some of the
dominant concepts of mainstream environmentalism today, if you
appreciate the potential for unintended consequences, and if you are
paying attention the ongoing momentum of mainstream environmentalism,
you will find this pronouncement sinister indeed. Here�s more:
�The fundamental rights of future generations need to be recognized in
international justice. Investigating the concept of Crimes against
Future Generations is a very important initiative to support this,�
according to Prof. Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, a World Future Council
�Councillor.�
Like most utopian concepts, this all sounds great except for one
glaring, fatal flaw: We can�t predict the future, or the judgement of
history. For example, in their press release, WFC notes the problem of
rainforest destruction due to oil drilling - ignoring the fact that most
rainforest destruction in the past decade or more has been financed by
proceeds from European emissions allowance auctions, because �carbon
neutral� biofuel plantations were considered until fairly recently to be
eligible carbon offset projects. Deforestation on the scale of hundreds
of thousands of square miles was enabled by social engineers of WFC�s
ilk, their misguided utopian idealism only matched by their political
savvy. In this case, the judgement of the future is already here - and
the guilty parties are the same people who are proposing we create a new
area of international law to prosecute who, themselves? Clearly, in the
case of rainforests, they didn�t see the future very well at all, nor
are they being honest today about what really happened.
Another obvious example of the simplistic arrogance of the WFC�s press
release is their distaste for nuclear power, despite the potential of
nuclear power to make significant contributions to global energy supply.
Nuclear power is cleaner and safer than ever, but to read this press
report you would think Chernobyl was yesterday. The irony is
fascinating - these people presume to be so certain of the judgement of
history some time in the future that they wish to prosecute those of us
today whose projects may not fit their world view, yet these futurists
have no faith in the potential for technology to deliver safe nuclear
power! What technologies do they like, and why, and will their
assessments be any more accurate than the ones that lead to the
incineration of Indonesian rainforests to plant oil palms?
If crimes against the future are going to be prosecuted, perhaps we
should prosecute those who in the name of environmentalism, fought,
often successfully, to eliminate nuclear power, eliminate coal power,
banned DDT and genetically modified crops, and in general restricted
resource development of all kinds. Because when the history of the 21st
century is written, it may be this version of environmentalism will be
to blame for condemning humanity to a dark age of scarcity that was
completely, utterly avoidable. So where are the legal briefs for this
case? In what international court shall we file this lawsuit against
environmentalists for �crimes against the future?�
Environmentalism today has been hijacked by powerful vested interests,
including public sector unions, corporate cartels, and the
�international community,� whose primary concern is preserving their
elite status and squelching competition. They are abetted by
irresponsible journalists who have not taken it upon themselves to
verify all of the doomsday predictions coming out of the PR mills such
as that of the WFC, nor are willing to consider alternative world views
that might embrace entrepreneurial activity and resource development.
They are also abetted by ambitious consultants, service professionals
and entrepreneurs of all stripes who see in the green mania a good way
to grow their businesses - and if they don�t think too hard, they may
even consciously think they are saving the planet. But when the
judgement of history is upon us, one hundred years hence, maybe it will
be those who wanted to reform environmentalism, right-size government,
and roll back the power of big labor who will be seen to have fought the
good fight. Green is a complex color - it reflects a great deal of
genuine beauty and promise, but shades of darkness as well.
Prosecuting �crimes against the future� is a snake pit, writhing with
opportunists and their useful zealots, and nothing more. It is
dangerous, it discredits the genuine values and challenges of
environmentalism that should be addressed, and threatens our freedom.
Ouroboros Rex
> Prosecuting "Future Crimes"
> The "World Future Council" has recently issued a press release stating
> "Crimes against Future Generations need to become taboo" (pdf), with a
> lead sentence that states the following: "How can we prevent and
> prosecute activites today that severely threaten the living conditions
> and health of those living in the future?"
>
> Does this sound sinister to you?
Nope, happens every day. Only an idiot would try to pretend it doesn't.
What A. Fool
>Prosecuting ?uture Crimes?
>The ?orld Future Council?has recently issued a press release stating
>?rimes against Future Generations need to become taboo?(pdf), with a
>lead sentence that states the following: ?ow can we prevent and
>prosecute activites today that severely threaten the living conditions
>and health of those living in the future??
>
>Does this sound sinister to you? If you don? buy into some of the
>dominant concepts of mainstream environmentalism today, if you
>appreciate the potential for unintended consequences, and if you are
>paying attention the ongoing momentum of mainstream environmentalism,
>you will find this pronouncement sinister indeed. Here? more:
>[snip]
James, can you please post with something that does not
insert question marks in place of certain characters of quoted
text, and maybe post the url if it is a quoted article.
Cat_in_awe
James's original post looked perfectly correct to me, but your post with his
section quoted shows the problem you decribe. I believe the problem rests
with your newsreader, not with James.
tunderbar
I think terrorism disguised as environmentalism and pseudo-religio-
scientific alarmism should be outlawed and people prosecuted right his
minute for past and current abuses of position. Start with Al Gore,
keep going with Hansen, Mann, Oreskes, et. al. and finish up with
computer climate modellers and assorted low-level university staff
members posting to google groups and other assorted ne'er-do-wells.
Purge them, stick them in concentration and labour camps. Line 'em up.
Every single one of them.
What A. Fool
wrote:
I believe it looks perfectly ok to you because you use OE 6.
I can live with the question marks, but it would be really
nice if everybody has the posting software set to insert quote
marks before quoted lines, as yours does above.
hda
It's about Languages settings:
JAMES: X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original OE 6
WHATAFOOL: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
AGENT 1.93
CATINAWE: X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original OE 6
HDA: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
AGENT 3.3
I use Unicode UTF-8 (us-ascii)
What A. Fool
My reader is set for UTF-8.
I think the quote marks have to be inserted by the posting
software, as far as I know, my posts have them, and only James
and one or two others don't have them, possibly because they
cut and paste rather than let the software do the quoting.
A lot of replies by James read as if he promotes AGW,
I didn't think he does.
I would think this is something he would like to be
very clear to readers.
Ouroboros Rex
No, they don't.
Ouroboros Rex
Drop by any time. lol