Green Eco-Imperialism - was "Greens and immigration"
Thomas
> > The Green idea is to quit wrecking
> > everybody else's country.
Western Greens are Eco-Imperialists who think they know better than
Third World people what is good for Third World countries.
> > Then they won't have to come here.
> > People stay home with their friends
> > and families if they can.
Western Greens enjoy their affluent, First World standard of living.
They don't want to have to share their BMWs, DSL, California wine,
403(b)s, and exclusive white-bread neighborhoods with Third World,
brown-skinned immigrants.
redclay wrote:
> So in the early 60's when Mexico was clean and pristine why were its
> citizens streaming north?
A fact that demonstrates the bankruptcy of Green social analysis.
> I have always thought it
> funny that the majority of
> the Greens live in a modern
> country while
> complaining about people
> not caring about the Third
> world. Why don't they
> move there and show these noble
> savages how to live in
> harmony with Gaia?
The primary objective of the Green Movement is to protect the
economic, social and political privilege of affluent First World
Greens, at the expense of impoverished Third World brown-skinned
people; that is, Green political activism seeks to ensure that Western
Greens continue to live in the air-conditioned bubble of Western
industrial affluence, and not in the hot, sweaty, peasant Third World
of "harmony with Gaia."
John Ladasky
> Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
>
> > > The Green idea is to quit wrecking
> > > everybody else's country.
>
> Western Greens are Eco-Imperialists who think they know better than
> Third World people what is good for Third World countries.
What a crock.
Greens believe in the intelligence and dignity of Third World people
far more than do the CORPO-Imperialists who are wrecking everyone
else's country.
Do you like democracy, Thomas? If your country's leadership has been
bribed by sweatshop operators or the petroleum transnationals, what
chance would you have to advance your own interests, no matter how
smart you are?
If there is something imperialistic about wanting democracy for Third
World people, we Greens stand guilty as charged.
> > > Then they won't have to come here.
> > > People stay home with their friends
> > > and families if they can.
>
> Western Greens enjoy their affluent, First World standard of living.
That's a non-sequitur. But yes, I do enjoy my standard of living. I
am very fortunate. But I am also quite frugal, financially solvent,
and I give time and money back to civic causes. What do you do?
> They don't want to have to share their BMWs,
Pah. 1990 Mercury Tracer, 38 mpg, since before Gulf War I, and with
low mileage. My other car is a bicycle. I can afford a luxury car,
but would NEVER own one.
> DSL, California wine,
> 403(b)s, and exclusive white-bread neighborhoods with Third World,
> brown-skinned immigrants.
Really? Well, when this Green gets back to his permanent home around
November 1, he'll just have to tell those two brown-skinned people
squatting in his house to get off him computer, stop drinking his
wine, and high-tail it out of his lily-white neighborhood.
I am referring, of course, to my wife (Malaysian-born, and registered
Green) and my son.
And while I'm at it, then maybe I should tell my neighbor on the left,
a white guy married to a woman from the Seychelles, that he needs to
get a divorce. And then maybe I'll place a burning cross on the front
porch of my Vietnamese neighbors on the right. Oh, and I mustn't
forget to torch another cross on the front lawn of the
African-American family living around the corner.
NOT.
There's nothing less Green than racism. Take your phony accusation
and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore MD 21218
USA
Earth
tom
immigration. It does not change the fact that immigration
is a disaster for the US environment. Further, since
the USA per capita is by far the world's leader in destroying the ecology of
the earth, bringing people here is not so great for the earth.
I wonder if your neighbors are all driving 38 mph vehicles.
But you dont have to answer. I live in an ethnically diverse neighborhood
and I dont think I am the least bit
racist. The new immigrants live like the rest of us wasteful
Americans.
The idea that we can just bring in all the world's huddled masses is a
disaster for the USA environmentally, and not so great for the earth either.
What happens when the earth has another billion people and the pressure to
come here is greater? Do we just keep bringing people in? By 2050, the UN
predicts at
the low end two billion more people on this earth.
rande...@rrogers.com
All the growth being in the Third World where birth rates approach
14/1000. Countries that cannot even support the people they have.
The only growth in the West is due to immigration to the West,
primarily from the Third World.
-Rich
Thomas
> > Western Greens are Eco-Imperialists who think they know better than
> > Third World people what is good for Third World countries.
John Ladasky wrote:
> What a crock.
>
> Greens believe in the intelligence and dignity of Third World people
> far more than do the CORPO-Imperialists who are wrecking everyone
> else's country.
These quotes, from environmentalist Gar Smith, editor of Earth
Island's Institute's on-line magazine, The Edge:
"...The idea that people are poor doesn't mean that they are not
living good lives..."
"...you can't really have poverty unless you have wealthy people on
the scene..."
"...I don't think a lot of electricity is a good thing. It is the fuel
that powers a lot of multi-national imagery..."
"...I have seen villages in Africa that had vibrant culture and great
communities that were disrupted and destroyed by the introduction of
electricity..."
"...There is a solution to climate change and pollution. We saw it
happen to Russia when their economy collapsed. Their industrial plants
closed down, the skies got clear. Their air is a lot cleaner now..."
> There's nothing less Green than racism.
Patrick Moore, head of the environmental advocacy group Greenspirit,
and a former founding member of Greenpeace, had this to say about
Smith's comments:
"...eco-imperialism at it's worst..."
"...It's that kind of arrogance that is coming from a movement that is
basically white upper-middle class and is saying that it's neat to
have Africans with no electricity..."
"...It is the same tendency that has caused Europeans to conquer the
whole planet in the first place..."
"...[a] naive vision of returning to some kind of Garden of Eden,
which was actually not that great because the average life span was
35..."
"...The environmentalists try to inject guilt into people for
consuming, as if consuming by itself causes destruction to the
environment. There is no truth to that. You have the wealthiest
countries on earth with the best looked-after environment..."
"...They are mainly political activists with not very much actual
science background who are using the rhetoric of environmentalism to
push agendas that are more political than they are ecological..."
All quotes from Marc Marano's CNSNews.com's story, "Eco-Imperialism:
'Green' Praises Poverty, Laments Electricity"
Thersites
> OK, you expressed your motivation for allowing free
> immigration. It does not change the fact that immigration
> is a disaster for the US environment. Further, since
> the USA per capita is by far the world's leader in destroying the ecology of
> the earth, bringing people here is not so great for the earth.
=======
Yup.
Multi-national conglomerates don't cause pollution. Immigrants do... ;)
John Ladasky
>
> > > Western Greens are Eco-Imperialists who think they know better than
> > > Third World people what is good for Third World countries.
>
> John Ladasky wrote:
>
> > What a crock.
> >
> > Greens believe in the intelligence and dignity of Third World people
> > far more than do the CORPO-Imperialists who are wrecking everyone
> > else's country.
[note: Ladasky's remarks concerning corporatism edited, by the
original poster, not by Ladasky]
> These quotes, from environmentalist Gar Smith, editor of Earth
> Island's Institute's on-line magazine, The Edge:
>
> "...The idea that people are poor doesn't mean that they are not
> living good lives..."
That's up to those "poor" people to determine though, isn't it?
Certain aspects of their lives might well be good. They will know. I
don't see any paternalism in Smith's remark. Why do you think that
many Americans yearn for small-town life, and run from the job-rich
suburbs as soon as they can afford to go?
> "...you can't really have poverty unless you have wealthy people on
> the scene..."
>
> "...I don't think a lot of electricity is a good thing. It is the fuel
> that powers a lot of multi-national imagery..."
I happen to agree that a lot of electricity is wasted. I have a
tenant in my house this year who, in his relentless quest for a
low-humidity, 65-degree house in the middle of a Maryland summer, SO
THAT HE CAN SLEEP UNDER HIS BLANKET, has managed to rack up 1700 kWh
per month of electrical use. Until now, I'd never lived with a Real
American. The most electricity that my wife, son, and I ever used in
that same house was 900 kWh/month. When my job kept me here in
Maryland, and my family went back to California, my usage dropped to
200-300 kWh/month. In eighteen months, I'll be *producing*
electricity with a solar PV array. I like electricity just fine. I
see no point in wasting it, though. Nor do I see any point in sucking
fossil-fuel vapors while we generate it. Nor would I want some
village in Africa to be silently latched on to the petroleum teat,
when they have cleaner and more self-sufficient choices.
> "...I have seen villages in Africa that had vibrant culture and great
> communities that were disrupted and destroyed by the introduction of
> electricity..."
Possible, but not necessary. There are ways to do it well. Ask the
people who live there. Greens will ask. Transnationals will bribe
local elites, and then impose their will.
> "...There is a solution to climate change and pollution. We saw it
> happen to Russia when their economy collapsed. Their industrial plants
> closed down, the skies got clear. Their air is a lot cleaner now..."
I noticed this same effect in the early 1990's in Silicon Valley. Sad
to say, the recession was good for the air. People were no longer
commuting 90-120 minutes each way to their employment, and traffic
slacked off. By 1996, the distant commuters were rolling in again,
only this time they were driving SUV's. The air turned brown again.
[large amounts snipped by the original poster, not by Ladasky]
> > There's nothing less Green than racism.
What an amazing edit. What happened to your smarmy remarks about
Greens living in lily-white neighborhoods, and my response? Are you
ashamed to see them again? You ought to be.
> Patrick Moore, head of the environmental advocacy group Greenspirit,
> and a former founding member of Greenpeace, had this to say about
> Smith's comments:
>
> "...eco-imperialism at it's worst..."
>
> "...It's that kind of arrogance that is coming from a movement that is
> basically white upper-middle class and is saying that it's neat to
> have Africans with no electricity..."
No, it isn't neat. But it also isn't neat to have Mexicans *with*
electricity, and an environment strewn with toxic waste. There are
better ways.
> "...It is the same tendency that has caused Europeans to conquer the
> whole planet in the first place..."
Actually, no, if we're going to adopt a non-intervention policy, then
Greens would be content to stay at home. We just want the
transnationals who go abroad in our countries' names to do whatever WE
have to do. If they export sweatshops, we'll export unions, family
planning, and democracy. If they try to sell a quick and dirty
solution, we will be there to offer the cleaner, long-term solutions.
> "...[a] naive vision of returning to some kind of Garden of Eden,
> which was actually not that great because the average life span was
> 35..."
An ancient canard in alt.politics.greens. As Mr. Alan Gowen said back
in 1993, the Green future is a high-technology future, higher-tech
than today. But it's also a future with more thought given to the
side-effects of technology.
> "...The environmentalists try to inject guilt into people for
> consuming, as if consuming by itself causes destruction to the
> environment.
Consuming many of the things that we presently consume is indeed
harmful to the environment. We can reduce the amounts of those
harmful things that we consume. Or, we can choose to consume less
harmful things. Then consumption won't have such a bad name. Look at
the example of the wastrel living in my house right now. I already
mentioned his electrical use. To take just one other example, I'm
having trouble finding parking these days. It's all on-street parking
in my neighborhood, and he always has at least one of his two cars (a
Porsche and a Lexus) there.
Tell me that there is anything redeeming in that way of living.
> There is no truth to that.
Proof by assertion, I see.
> You have the wealthiest
> countries on earth with the best looked-after environment..."
Not quite. Pollution per capita as a function of wealth has a local
minimum. The wealthiest countries on Earth have somewhat worse
pollution problems than the second-tier countries. The poorest
countries, too, have worse problems than the countries in the middle.
> "...They are mainly political activists with not very much actual
> science background who are using the rhetoric of environmentalism to
> push agendas that are more political than they are ecological..."
Ahem. Science background?
> All quotes from Marc Marano's CNSNews.com's story, "Eco-Imperialism:
> 'Green' Praises Poverty, Laments Electricity"
>
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/09/41025.html
So, congratulations. You found one article in the environmental
literature that quotes another article. The two authors disagree
about the appropriateness and extent of technological progress in the
undeveloped world. The first guy makes a few over-reaching
statements, and the second guy slams the first guy with over-reaching
statements of his own.
None of this has anything to do with the people in the Green Party.
Perhaps you were confused because Marano's article uses the word
"Green". A lot of people who don't know who we are make this mistake.
Meanwhile, I need to tell you to shove your racism back up where it
belongs once again.
tom
> Meanwhile, I need to tell you to shove your racism back up where it
> belongs once again.
As much as you want to turn immigration into a racism
issue, you still cant get over the fact that immigration is
a disaster for the environment of the USA and the earth
as a whole.
The population of the earth is exploding and we cant
just bring them here. If you havent noticed the USA
is already suffering from severe overpopulation problems,
sprawl, environmental degradation, congestion, destruction of natural
habitat, depressed wages etc etc etc.
Cameron L. Spitzer
> The population of the earth is exploding and we cant
> just bring them here.
Then we'd better stop destroying other countries'
domestic economies, so they can stay where they are.
Few people *want* to move here. They're forced to
leave home when they can't feed their families there.
Overpopulation and immigration aren't causes.
They're symptoms. You can't cure a disease by trying
to mask the symptoms.
Cameron
John Ladasky
> >
> > Meanwhile, I need to tell you to shove your racism back up where it
> > belongs once again.
>
> As much as you want to turn immigration into a racism
> issue,
HELLO, Tom, "jdmac...@hotmail.com (Thomas)" retitled this thread.
It now concerns a mythical substance known as "Green Eco-Imperialism".
I'm responding to him -- specifically, these remarks:
From: jdmac...@hotmail.com (Thomas)
Message-ID: <8075e205.03090...@posting.google.com>
] Western Greens enjoy their affluent, First World standard of living.
] They don't want to have to share their BMWs, DSL, California wine,
] 403(b)s, and exclusive white-bread neighborhoods with Third World,
] brown-skinned immigrants.
<snip>
] The primary objective of the Green Movement is to protect the
] economic, social and political privilege of affluent First World
] Greens, at the expense of impoverished Third World brown-skinned
] people;
It appears that, quite to the contrary, you're the one who wants to
turn a discussion about racism into an immigration issue.
John Ladasky
> > belongs once again.
>
> As much as you want to turn immigration into a racism
> issue,
HELLO, Tom, "jdmac...@hotmail.com (Thomas)" retitled this thread.
It now concerns a mythical substance known as "Green Eco-Imperialism".
I'm responding to him -- specifically, these remarks:
From: jdmac...@hotmail.com (Thomas)
Message-ID: <8075e205.03090...@posting.google.com>
] Western Greens enjoy their affluent, First World standard of living.
] They don't want to have to share their BMWs, DSL, California wine,
] 403(b)s, and exclusive white-bread neighborhoods with Third World,
] brown-skinned immigrants.
<snip>
] The primary objective of the Green Movement is to protect the
] economic, social and political privilege of affluent First World
] Greens, at the expense of impoverished Third World brown-skinned
] people;
It appears that, quite to the contrary, you're the one who wants to
turn a discussion about racism into an immigration issue.
--