so green energy/going green in general. for or against?

Against. Keith Lockitch explains why.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

Genetic_Code

For, I guess.

Because nature is beautiful and should be preserved and because some of mans needs are irrational or could be pleased with alternatives.

Teenaged

I think that nature's beautiful too. I wonder if that's irrational... :?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Because nature is beautiful and should be preserved and because some of mans needs are irrational or could be pleased with alternatives.

Palantas

I think that nature's beautiful too. I wonder if that's irrational... :?

I hope my post did come off the way I intended: as my opinion which I dont have arguments to back up with.

Against. Keith Lockitch explains why.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

Genetic_Code

So your reason for being against "green energy" is this idiot's demonizations of environmentalists, and his generalizing of them as universally holding these imaginary motives he has painted for them? Despite the fact that regardless of these presumed misantrophic beliefs that all environmentalists apparently hold, "green energy" produces immense long-term benefits for human society, such as not chucking poisonous fumes all around the place?

That's quite an interesting thought process. I never knew that one of the most moronic false dichotomies ever conceived was good grounds to be against self-sustaining power sources which didn't pollute the environment.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Against. Keith Lockitch explains why.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

Barbariser

So your reason for being against "green energy" is this idiot's demonizations of environmentalists, and his generalizing of them as universally holding these imaginary motives he has painted for them? Despite the fact that regardless of these presumed misantrophic beliefs that all environmentalists apparently hold, "green energy" produces immense long-term benefits for human society, such as not chucking poisonous fumes all around the place?

That's quite an interesting thought process. I never knew that one of the most moronic false dichotomies ever conceived was good grounds to be against self-sustaining power sources which didn't pollute the environment.

Until we find a sustainable alternate energy source I think we should be conscious of our consumption. Now in what context you take that as is up to you. I personally don't think one should go completely overboard with the Green movement. However if you feel that is perogative by all means go ahead.