This really deserves its own thread -

George Kane: Out of curiosity, what do you not like about the Greens?

That they are into pop issues, not real issues. They're a religion, not a political movement.

Consider -

* its more environmentally harmful to recycle aluminium cans than making new ones.

* The massive carbon emmission and energy drain caused by badly designed data centers - who's power consumption exceeded cumulative domestic power consumption in the US last year and is still rising.

* "Green" programming - designing software that uses less CPU cycles. It may sound trivial, until you really think about it.

* The massive carbon emmission and energy drain caused by most web pages having default white backgrounds - see previous.

* Electric cars are groovy baby - but what are you going to do with all those batteries once their life cycle has expired ? They have a nasty habit of concentrating extremely toxic substances.

Etcetera, et-bloody-cetera. Have you ever heard even *one* greenie consider *any* of the above issues ?

Nope. Its not glamorous. Not like chaining yourself to trees or storming Japanese whaling vessels. They'd spend their time much better going to basic science school.

When Greens start addressing REAL issues, I'll vote for them. Not before.

Tags: emotions, feel good, greens, populism

Views: 6

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I asked about the Greens specifically because they are international, and so have a program that has actually been part of coalition governments like Germany under Schroeder/Fischer.

They are not my choice. But at their convention in Denver in 2004, there was a motion to declare that “The Greens are not a socialist party.” The motion was defeated. I’ve got to like them for that. They have been nicknamed “The Watermelon Party” – Green on the outside and Red on the inside.

I’m sorry that I can’t comment on any of the issues you raised. I haven’t seen them addressed on the Green Party website. Are you sure you are not confusing them with Greenpeace?
George Kane: Are you sure you are not confusing them with Greenpeace?

Absolutely, positively sir. I have spent ~10 years of my life in environmental science and 10+ in IT.

The things that matter never get on the Green agenda for one reason and one reason only -

They cannot be EMOTIONALLY MANIPULATED. Unlike sick whales, dolphins in tuna nets or recycling insanity. Aluminium cans are but one example of the latter - I have seen entire dumpsters of glass sent to landfill because some cretin has thrown in ceramic shards, which poison the glass reclamation process.

To FEEL good and to DO good are diametrically opposed in our political Greens. They aren't after REAL results, they are after IMAGINED results and EMOTION.

I’m sorry that I can’t comment on any of the issues you raised. I haven’t seen them addressed on the Green Party website.

That's because they don't think. While we're at it -

* Why isn't paper junk mail priority number 1 ? My estimates, conservatively, Sydney, Australia, alone kills over 5000 tonnes of trees per week with unsolicited garbage clogging our mailboxes

* Advertising and mass media - psychological pollution that assaults our realities at every waking moment and even poisons our dreams while we sleep.

Question your Greens about what I have raised. Watch them say "excuse me sir, I think I'm needed over there". Because feeling good beats thinking any day. Just ask any god freak.
You'll have to pardon my aggression on this. But everytime I see a wilderness society jerk in a koala suit waving a collection bucket at me in the street, I have an irrational response of wanting to find a glass bottle and smash it in their face. Green minded psychiatrists would probably diagnose me as a psychopath. Unfortuanately, I'm just a realist / cynic/ freethinker. I choose to make my mind up by evidence, not feel-good love-in.
George Kane wrote on November 7 Are you sure you are not confusing them with Greenpeace?

felch grogan replied Absolutely, positively sir.

I can only conclude that the Green Party must be very different in Australia than it is in the United States, because to an American it is clear that you are addressing Greenpeace.

felch grogan replied The things that matter never get on the Green agenda….

In the Green Party platform, they do have one plank titled “A Major Commitment to Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, Conservation and Sustainable Transportation,” and you seem to have issues with it. But look at the other planks:

End the Occupation - Immediately. The ongoing occupation of Iraq, like the initial invasion, is illegal, immoral, unjustified and motivated by the agenda of a narrow tier of corporate interests.

Prevent Future Wars: Address the Causes of War.

We need to rein in corporate power, with a combination of reforms, including strong campaign finance reforms, corporate codes of conduct, strong chartering laws, ending the status of corporations as a legal "person," and building alternatives to the corporate model.

Universal Health Care Through a Single-Payer System.

Restore human rights and civil liberties.

Fair Trade, a Rebuilt Infrastructure and Investment in Education.

In addition to these specific commitments, Green Party candidates - being representatives of a party based on principles and values, beginning with the Four Pillars of grassroots democracy, ecological wisdom, social justice and nonviolence, a party that rejects corporate campaign money and cannot be bought and sold to the highest bidder - will, if elected, be genuine representatives of the people and of the public good.

This is a platform that is generally attractive to progressive activists, and, as I mentioned earlier, the party is international and has experience in national governance. Of the parties on the left in the US, I think they are one of the most likely to succeed.

I am also not a political fit with them, but I think I stand closer to their positions than I do to the Democratic Party, which as I’ve explained is a major obstacle to secular government in the US.
George Kane: ecological wisdom

This is what disturbs me - they have none. Given that, the rest of the "feel good" agenda instills me with zero confidence. Additionally, I have heard the same hollow words from Marxists and theocrats. They deserve the same level of trust as GOP.

When they prove they have a solid ecological platform, they can start with the rest of their grandiosity. If they can't, they should change the name "Greens".

Until then, as close as you'd get are the Libertarians.
OK then, the Libertarians. My same argument applies.

Atheists should be working with parties such as Libertarians, that have a core commitment to separation of church and state, to build them into parties that can successfully contest elections at every level, year-in and year-out, rather than tear them down by supporting the Democrats every year because "otherwise we would throw away our vote." As long as atheists believe that there is no alternative to the Democrats, they will never acquire political leverage.


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service