Has environmentalism gone too far?

• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2010-10-05 19:04
  First of all, let me clarify that I am not against protecting the environment, however, I have begun to notice that the environmentalist movement as a whole is starting to become dangerously radical (and downright stupid for that matter). As an illustration, here is an excerpt from an article describing a new iPhone game.
  
  

  iPhone Game Slaughters Humans To Defend “Mother Earth”
  
  Paul Joseph Watson
  Infowars.com
  Tuesday, October 5, 2010
  
  A popular new game for the iPhone depicts a giant worm slaughtering humans and knocking airplanes out of the sky to save “mother earth” in another shocking example of how the eco-fascists that have taken over the environmental movement are obsessed with mass genocide and gory death.
  
  As I look out my window while typing this article, the sky is blue, the sun is shining, the trees are swaying and the birds are singing, but according to the makers of Super Mega Worm, the planet was only like this many hundreds of years ago before humans started making evil machines that belched carbon dioxide.
  
  During the opening sequence, the blue and green earth is shown to slowly turn into a brown and grey goop, with accompanying images of environmental destruction making clear that man is to blame for this non-existent phenomenon, followed by the words “Mother Earth is Dying”.
  
  But fear not, because “her last defense has been unleashed,” in the form of a huge worm that chomps its way though children and women with baby strollers as blood splatters everywhere in a similar vein to the harrowing 10:10 Global climate change propaganda film that depicted people who refused to lower their carbon footprint being liquidated amidst an explosion of blood and guts.
  
  [video=youtube;xNhxQ0SElwE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNhxQ0SElwE&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

  
  
  Link to article: iPhone Game Slaughters Humans To Defend “Mother Earth”
  
  What are your thoughts on this?
• Chockeh wrote on 2010-10-05 19:07
  This seems perfect for my world studies class, please discuss.
  -Lack of political knowledge D:!
• Chillax wrote on 2010-10-05 19:10
  The game doesn't really have much relevance to the current environmental movement, so I don't really have an opinion on the matter.
• Kueh wrote on 2010-10-05 19:13
  Fail thread is fail.
  
  The game is obviously ridiculous, and not a serious representation of the environmentalist movement.
  
  It's not like environmentalists want to use giant worms to knock airplanes out of the sky.
  
  [Also, violence in video games is no surprise. This one just so happens to be environmentally themed. There's a game where you ride a giant sperm and slaughter countless people by various means. Has reproduction gone too far?]
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2010-10-05 19:14

  Quote from Chillax;176362:

  The game doesn't really have much relevance to the current environmental movement, so I don't really have an opinion on the matter.

  
  
  Well the game was just one reason I thought environmentalism is going off the deep end. Consider this video of Bill Gates advocating massive population reduction.
  
  [video=youtube;WUJMR3BUm2s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJMR3BUm2s&feature=player_embedded[/video]
• Intex wrote on 2010-10-05 19:14

  environmentalist movement as a whole is starting to become dangerously radical

  
  Are people threatening you to recycle and drive a low emission car?
  Environmentalist movements never hit the top news stories for a reason, they just aren't interesting or radical enough.
  What you do hear is Bush allowing oil drilling or BP screwing over the environment.
  
  And that iPhone game just has a strange idea to give it some uniqueness.
  Here's one of the four star reviews
  

  this game has the most simplest graphics yet the action is what makes you play the game over and over... one thing i did not like was the way you control the worm. if you go to options you can change it so that you can move him by a regular D-pad... great game over all

  
  People don't play this game because they love killing people (maybe they do like killing though) in the name of earth.
  There are games that let me kill hookers and rob old women, does that mean gang crime is on a rise?
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2010-10-05 19:20

  Quote from Intex;176370:

  
  
  People don't play this game because they love killing people (maybe they do like killing though) in the name of earth.
  There are games that let me kill hookers and rob old women, does that mean gang crime is on a rise?

  
  
  True the average people (typically) do not advocate mass murder in the name of "Mother" Earth, however, the fact is that many top scientists do. SOURCE: Scientists Cheer Holocaust Wish
  
  Also refer to the Bill Gates video I posted earlier on this thread.
• Chillax wrote on 2010-10-05 19:22

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;176377:

  True the average people (typically) do not advocate mass murder in the name of "Mother" Earth, however, the fact is that many top scientists do. SOURCE: Scientists Cheer Holocaust Wish
  
  Also refer to the Bill Gates video I posted earlier on this thread.

  
  
  I don't have time to watch this video, since I have to get to class, but can you at least post one unbiased article of what you're talking about. It seems a lot of the articles that you're posting are taking quotations out of context.
• Intex wrote on 2010-10-05 19:26

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;176377:

  True the average people (typically) do not advocate mass murder in the name of "Mother" Earth, however, the fact is that many top scientists do. SOURCE: Scientists Cheer Holocaust Wish
  
  Also refer to the Bill Gates video I posted earlier on this thread.

  
  
  

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;176369:

  Well the game was just one reason I thought environmentalism is going off the deep end. Consider this video of Bill Gates advocating massive population reduction.
  
  [video=youtube;WUJMR3BUm2s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJMR3BUm2s&feature=player_embedded[/video]

  
  
  You think Bill Gates wants to kill a billion people?
  The fact that he has been developing the malaria vaccine for so long really indicates that.
  FYI Bill Gates vaccine program is intended to lower the amount of people in the malaria stricken places.
  Know how? Lower infant mortality rates (in this case malaria caused) means lower birth rates.
  Children are an investment in these areas.
  

  A single vaccine might have saved the life of his son, Buli, who was 3 months old when he fell ill. But the loss of one child, painful as it was, did not devastate his family. In much of Africa, families still expect their children to die and have more of them -- as insurance.
  "We have no social security system in Africa," said Kebba Jobe, an immunization specialist in Gambia. "Our children are our social security system."
  This is the cycle of disease and poverty Gates wants to see broken.
  It's a cycle that is at its most vicious in Africa, perversely contributing to the continent's high birth rate. By breaking the cycle, Gates also hopes to get at the problem that originally motivated his philanthropic impulses -- overpopulation.

  
  He wants to fight overpopulation by helping these people have a child and keep it alive rather than have four children hoping at least one of them will live.
  He is doing the exact opposite of what you're instigating.
  
  That speech was addressing the fact that energy miracles need to happen in order to help these people.
  What he backed was a new type of nuclear power plant that would have little environmental impact.
  
  

  True the average people (typically) do not advocate mass murder in the name of "Mother" Earth, however, the fact is that many top scientists do. SOURCE: Scientists Cheer Holocaust Wish

  
  That doesn't even count as a source.
  Top scientists really do love mass murder.
  I mean that's why they try to create new vaccines, fight disease, create cheap innovations to help impoverished countries, and try to help the environment so people don't die from crop failures.
• Jess wrote on 2010-10-05 19:28

  Quote from Intex;176386:

  He wants to fight overpopulation by helping these people have a child and keep it alive rather than have four children hoping at least one of them will live.

  
  
  Ahh you beat me....This.
  
  Also, that game looks AWESOME!
• Intex wrote on 2010-10-05 19:37
  Also try watching the whole video.
  [video=youtube;JaF-fq2Zn7I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I[/video]
  
  Not a clip that cuts the part and takes it out of context just to make it fit the part..
  Any "source" that is [SIZE="3"]fear mongering[/SIZE] isn't a real or credible source.
  
  Do you really think killing people would be a good idea to radical environs?
  The legal matters they can never bypass, the actual energy it would take to kill all those people, none of it would have a positive effect on the movement or the environment.
  
  Radical environmentalists want farmers to stop raising so many cows.
  But you don't see "Cow holocaust coming?" in the news.
• Kueh wrote on 2010-10-05 19:44
  This is a little exercise on the dangers of quoting out of context.
  
  

  Quote from Chillax;176381:

  I don't have time to watch this video, since I have to get It.

  
  
  

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;176352:

  First of all, let me clarify that I am dangerously radical (and downright stupid for that matter).
  
  What are your thoughts?

  
  
  
  

  Quote from Jess;176389:

  you beat me. AWESOME!

• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2010-10-05 19:59

  Quote from Intex;176386:

  You think Bill Gates wants to kill a billion people?
  The fact that he has been developing the malaria vaccine for so long really indicates that.
  FYI Bill Gates vaccine program is intended to lower the amount of people in the malaria stricken places.
  Know how? Lower infant mortality rates (in this case malaria caused) means lower birth rates.
  Children are an investment in these areas.
  
  He wants to fight overpopulation by helping these people have a child and keep it alive rather than have four children hoping at least one of them will live.
  He is doing the exact opposite of what you're instigating.

  
  
  Yes but how does that reduce world population by 10-15% (Bill Gate's goal)? Having 1 child instead of 5 children (most of which die according to Bill Gates) is not going to decrease the population by 700,000 LOL. In other, words, there is porbably something more sinister behind the rest of the population reduction.
  
  

  That doesn't even count as a source.
  Top scientists really do love mass murder.
  I mean that's why they try to create new vaccines, fight disease, create cheap innovations to help impoverished countries, and try to help the environment so people don't die from crop failures.

  
  
  What we need to ask ourselves about vaccines though, is, are they really that beneficial to our health? There are much better ways of keeping yourself healthy you know. Now before you burn me as a heretic, please read this article from BBC (Neutral)
  
  

  Breastfeeding 'prevents baby infections,' research suggests
  
  Regardless of other factors, such as good healthcare and vaccination programmes, breastfeeding still gives babies a boost, say Greek researchers.
  
  They say it is the composition of breast milk that helps babies fight infections.
  
  The findings, from a study of 1,000 vaccinated infants, are published in Archives of Diseases in Childhood.
  
  Researchers say the benefit only comes with exclusive breastfeeding - mixing breast and bottle will not achieve the same.
  
  World experts already recommend that infants are exclusively breastfed for at least the first six months of life.
  Natural boost
  
  For the study, the researchers tracked the health of 926 infants for a period of 12 months, recording any common infections these babies had during their first year of life.
  
  All the newborns were routinely vaccinated and had access to a high standard of healthcare.
  
  Almost two-thirds of mothers were breastfeeding at one month, but this figure dropped to just under a fifth at six months.
  
  Overall, 91 of the infants were exclusively breastfed for a full six months.
  
  Subsequently, these infants had significantly fewer common infections during their first year of life than their peers who were either partially breastfed or not breastfed at all.
  
  These included respiratory and ear infections, as well as thrush.
  
  And the infections they did pick up were less severe, even after adjusting for other factors that might influence infection risk, such as number of siblings and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
  
  Professor Emmanouil Galanakis and his team say it is the composition of breast milk that explains their findings.
  
  Breast milk contains antibodies passed from the mother, as well as other immunological and nutritional factors that help the baby fight off infections.
  
  "Mothers should be advised by health professionals that, in addition to all the other benefits, exclusive breastfeeding helps prevent infections in babies and lessens the frequency and severity of infectious episodes," the researchers say.
  
  Janet Fyle of the Royal College of Midwives said: "This research is very welcome and adds to the growing weight of evidence about the many benefits of breastfeeding.
  
  "We know that breastfeeding is the default method of infant feeding for babies; good for mothers and good for the health of the nation. That is why we need to continue our efforts to ensure that we maintain a high rate of breastfeeding in the UK.
  
  "The UK needs to see breastfeeding as a normal process, and to move away from some of the outdated and negative stigma that is depressingly still attached to it, specifically breastfeeding in public."

  
  
  Link to article: BBC News - Breastfeeding 'prevents baby infections,' research suggests
  
  Other methods of disease prevention shown to be much more effective than vaccination include vitamin D intake, and natural herbal remedies.
  
  Furthermore, vaccines have been shown to be quite harmful and provide very few benefits. SOURCE: Australia bans flu vaccines in children after vomiting, fevers, seizures
  
  Oh and by the way, you cannot really claim that anything that has information (regardless of what you think of it) is not a source LOL.
• SuperSoulful wrote on 2010-10-05 20:16
  What do vaccines have to do with radical environmentalists?
  Are you attacking the ideas of environmentalists or the people behind them? (i.e. Bill Gates)
  
  Also, to quote the breastfeeding article:
  

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;176410:

  
  "Mothers should be advised by health professionals that, in addition to all the other benefits, exclusive breastfeeding helps prevent infections in babies and lessens the frequency and severity of infectious episodes," the researchers say.
  

  
  
  Exclusive breastfeeding refers to breastfeeding only and NOT using formula milk.
  
  

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;176410:

  
  "...subsequently, these infants had significantly fewer common infections during their first year of life than their peers who were either partially breastfed or not breastfed at all."
  

  
  
  There's nothing about vaccination in that article.
  And no, I'm not discounting it as a source, I'm discounting the validity of the argument you are making WITH the source.
• Kueh wrote on 2010-10-05 20:23

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;176410:

  Yes but how does that reduce world population by 10-15% (Bill Gate's goal)? Having 1 child instead of 5 children (most of which die according to Bill Gates) is not going to decrease the population by 700,000 LOL. In other, words, there is porbably something more sinister behind the rest of the population reduction.

  
  
  Better 700,000 than 2,000,000. Or are you saying that it's better for more people to die of malaria than a decrease in population because people are having fewer babies LOL?
  
  
  
  

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;176410:

  What we need to ask ourselves about vaccines though, is, are they really that beneficial to our health? There are much better ways of keeping yourself healthy you know. Now before you burn me as a heretic, please read this article from BBC (Neutral)
  
  
  Other methods of disease prevention shown to be much more effective than vaccination include vitamin D intake, and natural herbal remedies.

  
  
  We don't need to ask. It's irrefutable that vaccines have greatly increased the general health of humans.
  
  Citing news articles (that don't even have links to the actual studies LOL) that don't fully explain the workings of a vaccine is another example of your taking things out of context.
  
  In infants, of course breast feeding is going to be highly efficient in strengthening the immune system. Why? Not because vaccines are inefficient, but rather because the human body is designed to be breastfed and its immune system is designed to receive those boosts. Vaccines are also designed to work with an extant immune system, so it's common sense that vaccines would be less effective on infants and children.
  
  Don't even try to tell me that natural herb remedies have been proven to be more effective than vaccines. That's not something to be debated, that's just flat out wrong. You've gotten several mandatory vaccines in your life already because you would be dead now without them. It wasn't herbal remedies that stopped the polio epidemic.
  
  Vitamin D, and Herbal Remedies are all supplements. That's a totally different realm than a treatment such as vaccines.
  
  The big problem I have with herbal remedies is that their effectiveness depends on so many different factors (such as time of year, soil composition, water intake, atmospheric intake, use of botanical supplements) that, not only is one brand going to be almost completely different from another brand, but one pill could be radically different from another pill in the same bottle.
  
  

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;176410:

  Furthermore, vaccines have been shown to be quite harmful and provide very few benefits.

  
  
  You know what a vaccine is right? It's perfectly normal for a vaccine to cause certain health problems right after it's been taken. The benefits come after. I'm not sure what you consider few benefits, but I cherish the fact that I haven't died of tetanus thanks to my tetanus vaccines. And you know what? When I got my tetanus vaccine, I feel ill the very next day. Probably due to the vaccine itself.
  
  A vaccine is a simulated infection. It's perfectly normal for the body to react like it would react under infectious conditions.