• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

"Racism Is Killing the Planet" (1 Viewer)

Mono

Hi!
Staff member
Supporter
Europe
A couple points:

Cut the hyperbole: nobody is killing the planet, the planet is a lump of rock spinning in space and will carry on doing so for another few billion years.

The environmental problems that affect humanity affect humanity. The assemblage of flora and fauna around us only have value because we place value upon them. Once humans have gone the way of the triceratops life of many and various forms will still thrive on the spinning rock.

The calls for justice and equality for the others, be they black, be they the "natives", be they the poor, all involve levelling up. A better division of the cake, not less cake.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
A couple points:

Cut the hyperbole: nobody is killing the planet, the planet is a lump of rock spinning in space and will carry on doing so for another few billion years.

The environmental problems that affect humanity affect humanity. The assemblage of flora and fauna around us only have value because we place value upon them. Once humans have gone the way of the triceratops life of many and various forms will still thrive on the spinning rock.

The calls for justice and equality for the others, be they black, be they the "natives", be they the poor, all involve levelling up. A better division of the cake, not less cake.
You honestly think nobody is killing the planet ?

The thread title is the title of the article - hence the quotation marks.
Did you read the article ?

Your last paragraph seems to miss the point entirely. Perhaps re-read the article ?





Chosun :gh:
 

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
Chosun,

I've read the article but don't find it succeeds in making the case that "racism is killing the planet." The terms are too broad and undefined. What are the criteria for "killing the planet?"

Now, it could be that human industry is making the planet uninhabitable, and if that were to happen it would result in extinction of homo sapiens, and other species, — but not death of the planet. And if we were not here, who would there be to complain about it?

In my opinion, the article is just an effort by the Sierra Club to appear relevant by talking about racism.

Ed

BTW, still waiting for your comments on the "Planet of the Humans," which directly addresses this topic.
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Chosun,

I've read the article but don't find it succeeds in making the case that "racism is killing the planet." The terms are too broad and undefined. What are the criteria for "killing the planet?"

Now, it could be that human industry is making the planet uninhabitable, and if that were to happen it would result in extinction of homo sapiens, and other species, — but not death of the planet. And if we were not here, who would there be to complain about it?

In my opinion, the article is just an effort by the Sierra Club to appear relevant by talking about racism.

Ed

BTW, still waiting for your comments on the "Planet of the Humans," which directly addresses this topic.

Ed,

I will respond further later, but far from a cynical exercise, I think it's a welcome realization by some in the environmental movement, of the true root cause of environmental damage.

After all, how many decades has the movement been going ? and I'd say the amount of damage and the trends are worse than ever.

This is what I take to be the definition of 'death of the planet' - the loss of richness and beauty ..... not to mention necessary supporting mechanisms and services, and the complexity of the Web of life.





Chosun :gh:
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
I think people are quibbling over semantics. No, we are not "killing the planet", but "producing long-lasting harm to the biosphere and significantly reducing biodiversity" doesn't have the same ring to it.

While I don't agree with everything the article says (in particular the romanticism of indigenous beliefs and some language used), Racism does intertwine itself mistreatment of the environment. A lot of societal ills as the article mentions can be linked to the concept of disposable populations, and a lot of times (but not always) that breaks down on racial lines. Companies get away with some heinous stuff because they know as long as that stuff only effects minority or economically disadvantaged communities, people won't care. And that doesn't even get at the more "blunt" effects racism can play, like the Brazilian government turning a blind eye to illegal gold mining and outright murder of local indigenous people to facilitate it.
 

jurek

Well-known member
And in my opinion, both racism and environment are serious problems, but linking one and another simply muddles the issue and loses credibility.
 

justabirdwatcher

Well-known member
A couple points:

Cut the hyperbole: nobody is killing the planet, the planet is a lump of rock spinning in space and will carry on doing so for another few billion years.

The environmental problems that affect humanity affect humanity. The assemblage of flora and fauna around us only have value because we place value upon them. Once humans have gone the way of the triceratops life of many and various forms will still thrive on the spinning rock.

The calls for justice and equality for the others, be they black, be they the "natives", be they the poor, all involve levelling up. A better division of the cake, not less cake.

this.

I've been hearing "save the planet" for my entire life. What they really mean is "save the planet AS WE KNOW IT!"

Mono is absolutely right. "The planet" will fling us tiny organisms right off and keep on twirling, only to create new species and new ecosystems. Anyone who believes otherwise has a very human-centric view of things.
 

justabirdwatcher

Well-known member
And in my opinion, both racism and environment are serious problems, but linking one and another simply muddles the issue and loses credibility.

I'm not so sure about that. It's a difficult argument to get most people to understand, but racism is at the root of nearly all the problems the human species has, and those problems lead to a lot of environmental degradation.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
I'm not so sure about that. It's a difficult argument to get most people to understand, but racism is at the root of nearly all the problems the human species has, and those problems lead to a lot of environmental degradation.

How does racism, make Indonesian boat skippers, dump all their garbage, including platics, in to the sea. How does racism, make the Chinese, denude the planet of every recource possible, animal, mineral and vegetable, you can't blame it all on the white man.

The root of 'nearly all the problems, the human species has', is greed.
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
How does racism, make Indonesian boat skippers, dump all their garbage, including platics, in to the sea. How does racism, make the Chinese, denude the planet of every recource possible, animal, mineral and vegetable, you can't blame it all on the white man.

The root of 'nearly all the problems, the human species has', is greed.

No. The root of human destruction of biodiversity is human over-population and major influences on that are the strange desires of people to have descendants when they are not going to inherit vast wealth or tracts of land, and being proud of numbers viz grandparents inappropriately boasting of how many children they produced and how many grandchildren those have now littered the planet with.

What we need are people who don't feel the need to breed at all, just enjoy their own lives, and to shame those who over-produce till they creep around quietly in corners with their heads hanging and learn to keep it zipped.

John
 

Gill Osborne

Well-known member
N
What we need are people who don't feel the need to breed at all, just enjoy their own lives, and to shame those who over-produce till they creep around quietly in corners with their heads hanging and learn to keep it zipped.

:t: It always baffles me WHY anyone would want to have loads of kids anyway. I decided when I was 10 years old (in 1978) that the planet was overpopulated and I've never once regretted that decision.
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
No. The root of human destruction of biodiversity is human over-population and major influences on that are the strange desires of people to have descendants when they are not going to inherit vast wealth or tracts of land, and being proud of numbers viz grandparents inappropriately boasting of how many children they produced and how many grandchildren those have now littered the planet with.

What we need are people who don't feel the need to breed at all, just enjoy their own lives, and to shame those who over-produce till they creep around quietly in corners with their heads hanging and learn to keep it zipped.

John

Yes, I agree. I experienced this in practice when I visited China in '91 and noticed brightly decorated trees and areas in small woods ( farmland, remote areas ) where "supposedly" a second child had been laid to rest. I have never researched this as it shocked and made me a bit glum, still does.

Then, the opposite. At around the same period the great "Save the Amazon rainforest" campaigner and musician Sting was making a big thing with awareness, concerts and even photos with tribal chiefs. He had previously sent back a Riva speedboat gift given to him by his management as it was made of mahogany and other rare hardwoods. All very laudable - however he carried on producing children for a few more years.

But he's not the only rock star fathering through later years. Mick Jagger, Ronnie Wood and now ex Formula 1 mogul Bernie Ecclestone in his 80s.

Is this a sign of greed, arrogance or just human nature? Were there not sterilization efforts during the 60s and 70s in parts of Africa under the guise of preventing starvation / hunger crisis?

Where and how do we start to consider "one child only per family" to try to slow down the world population increase?

Education seems to have failed.
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
Yes, I agree. I experienced this in practice when I visited China in '91 and noticed brightly decorated trees and areas in small woods ( farmland, remote areas ) where "supposedly" a second child had been laid to rest. I have never researched this as it shocked and made me a bit glum, still does.

Then, the opposite. At around the same period the great "Save the Amazon rainforest" campaigner and musician Sting was making a big thing with awareness, concerts and even photos with tribal chiefs. He had previously sent back a Riva speedboat gift given to him by his management as it was made of mahogany and other rare hardwoods. All very laudable - however he carried on producing children for a few more years.

But he's not the only rock star fathering through later years. Mick Jagger, Ronnie Wood and now ex Formula 1 mogul Bernie Ecclestone in his 80s.

Is this a sign of greed, arrogance or just human nature? Were there not sterilization efforts during the 60s and 70s in parts of Africa under the guise of preventing starvation / hunger crisis?

Where and how do we start to consider "one child only per family" to try to slow down the world population increase?

Education seems to have failed.

I don't worry about individual folks having more children...it's better to look at overall birth rates. If one family has three or four offspring, if those extra kids are compensated by folks like myself producing zero kids, it's fine.

The best way of ensuring reduced population growth is to improve the overall education and economic success of people, improving access to birth control and health care in general, and supporting women's rights. There is a strong correlation between those trends improving and a lowering of birthrate.

We've seen what happens what happens when a government just tries to dictate population control with China, and it's not good. Also measures like these seem to always put the burden on the poor and disadvantaged in society.
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Mysticete; Also measures like these seem to always put the burden on the poor and disadvantaged in society.[/QUOTE said:
Yes sadly, this does happen (as FJ mentioned ref. the parents wealth). It is a vicious circle as we know that puts pressures on all aspects - finance, social, housing etc.

But we are talking about killing the planet - the seams have been at bursting point for so long. Human overpopulation is the main reason, not race, creed or colour.

We cannot make the planet bigger, so why not try to halt the world population increase as a starting point? It's painfully obvious that family "trade off" as mentioned, simply does not work.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top