Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Ishavemychesthair2

I'm Doing My Inconsequential Part For The Environment

Recommended Posts

Its called a collective effort. And anyone who uses that article to weasle out of doing their part in helping to reduce pollution/emissions is an ignorant fool. That's right.

 

BTW Dawud Israel, surely you are very aware that non-Muslims (aka "kafirs") tend to do more green things than lazy, cheap Muslims.

 

i'm going to leave my car on all night and walk around spraying an aerosol can just for you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rock on!! ^^

 

how about destroying a ship carrying tons of oil/petrol? Just incase the fish are getting abit too rusty.. you know!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm going to leave my car on all night and walk around spraying an aerosol can just for you :)

 

 

Thats military intelligence for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, and when you have to bust good $$$ to replace your car battery and engine for keeping them both idle alll night long, and when you get cancer from inhaling all those carcinogens from that aerosol, maybe then your appreciation for ignorant foolishness will subside. Maybe, but then again you put a razor to your chest soooo no telling there

 

har har har.

 

ok jokes aside (you need to learn how to take a joke by the way :P ).

 

I remember reading a book for a globalization and environmental politics class which was done by a some professors at MIT in the 1970s that essentially argued that our resources in Earth (based on the then present consumption rate and what not) would all be lost by 2000.

 

yea, didn't happen.

 

one aspect that is often ignored (and often neglected) in such debates is issue regarding the role of technology and its application to utilize the world's resources more efficiently (which obviously the MIT professors did not take into account).

 

so all those "the earth will die tomorrow" doomsday articles quite often assume that the consumption rate today will undoubtedly increase, but the technological question is not even taken into account (dumb).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to learn how to take a comeback by the way :o

 

Anyways, those MIT profs in the 1970s were about 150ish years late. Thomas Malthus in late 1700s/early 1800s also theorized similarly - population grows exponentially whereas food production grows numerically and thus we will be in an epidemic if we do not curve population. Indeed, he was wrong as were those MIT dudes saying all resources would be lost. However, they are rapidly depleting. And with landloss through rising tides due to the melting of glaciers which are brought on by global warming which is caused by POLLUTION then well, resources go all the faster.

 

If you consume more, you do exactly that - use up more. If you consume less (because OHNOES now youll have to use an energy efficient lightbulb instead of a halogen one) then your output and intake of resources is less. Whence conglamorating into an effort of hm roughly 6billion people (although this number is unfair since it is the western world that does much of the [over]-consumption), this has incredible effects.

Technology can take one oh so far. Plus, if there is no profitability from potential world-saving technological advances then they will never gain market nor become popularized. So whereas technology can put us ahead (one may argue that it has worked to put us behind, what with pesticides ruining fertile soils for brief stints of excellent production, for example. Also the fact that technology itself uses up iiiiiiiiiiincredible resources), it absolutely will not unless economics agrees. What kindof technology did you have in mind anyways?

 

but see i would argue that this is an assumption. the "economics" of a given technological advance simply depends on time and the means to produce it on a massive scale at a decent price. and i was speaking in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody remember this Saturday at 8 pm to 9 pm is EARTH HOUR. Don't use any energy whatsoever, and help save the planet.

Go camping in the backyard or something. Eat a snake. muahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but see i would argue that this is an assumption. the "economics" of a given technological advance simply depends on time and the means to produce it on a massive scale at a decent price. and i was speaking in general.

 

wow. you've actually brought up a good point. first time for everything:P the techno-economic debate. ahhh old techi-ecci...

 

so can technologies be used to save the earth? possibly yes.

 

Are they, or will they be? that depends on if that technology is economically viable.

 

what does that mean? it means if the product doesn't cost a corporation too much to make, and it can be sold at reasonable prices,

 

so we won't see earth saving technologies untill they're cheap enough to produce? they can be produced.

 

so why don't they? because corporations couldn't make enough profit on them to bother.

 

why is that? corporations are guided by profit, greed, and evil (business ethics as some call them) they won't invest in an idea untill they can gain a mass level of profits off off said technology.

 

don't they have enough money already? yes. they could heal and feed the world severl times over, but why should they, they're not real human beings.

 

then what are they? they are soulless demons from the planet glaxvox, in the galaxy chubaroon 5 (it's the one that looks laike a munnkeee :D)

 

are you serious? no, these last two lines are false.

 

khy,

 

ps. the point was that the technology arguement could be valid, but the economics they hinge on are flawed. the tech is there. the price to help humanity hasn't been met yet.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow. you've actually brought up a good point. first time for everything:P the techno-economic debate. ahhh old techi-ecci...

 

so can technologies be used to save the earth? possibly yes.

 

Are they, or will they be? that depends on if that technology is economically viable.

 

what does that mean? it means if the product doesn't cost a corporation too much to make, and it can be sold at reasonable prices,

 

so we won't see earth saving technologies untill they're cheap enough to produce? they can be produced.

 

so why don't they? because corporations couldn't make enough profit on them to bother.

 

why is that? corporations are guided by profit, greed, and evil (business ethics as some call them) they won't invest in an idea untill they can gain a mass level of profits off off said technology.

 

don't they have enough money already? yes. they could heal and feed the world severl times over, but why should they, they're not real human beings.

 

then what are they? they are soulless demons from the planet glaxvox, in the galaxy chubaroon 5 (it's the one that looks laike a munnkeee :D)

 

are you serious? no, these last two lines are false.

 

khy,

 

ps. the point was that the technology arguement could be valid, but the economics they hinge on are flawed. the tech is there. the price to help humanity hasn't been met yet.

 

give it just a little bit more time, prices for 'green' cars are dropping (for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shifting responcibility could mean showing corporations that consumer interests have changed. if we can get them to think they could make money of saving the world then ok, lets do that. the problem with giving technology time is that we don't know how much time we have. since the corporations are spying on us all the time, we have to show them sustainibility is number 1.

 

khy,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shifting responcibility could mean showing corporations that consumer interests have changed. if we can get them to think they could make money of saving the world then ok, lets do that. the problem with giving technology time is that we don't know how much time we have. since the corporations are spying on us all the time, we have to show them sustainibility is number 1.

 

khy,

 

nah i don't think it's that bad man. they'd be wasting their time. it'll just take more government subsidies to get the ball rolling on new technological advances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^Governments are largely influenced if not directly a part of MNCs (Multinational Corporations). Everyone is out to make a profit Lewis, and unless environmental sustainability can provide as much, it won't gain any footing in the market.

 

it can if you create enough demand. just look at the huge demand for "organic" foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everybody remember this Saturday at 8 pm to 9 pm is EARTH HOUR. Don't use any energy whatsoever, and help save the planet.

Go camping in the backyard or something. Eat a snake. muahaha

Eating snakes is Haram. Although it would be permissible if you were in a life or death situation, then you could eat just enough snakes to survive. However if this necessity is an inevitable result of you 'camping in the backyard' then the act of camping itself becomes Haram for you. So either way you cannot advocate for someone to go camping AND eat a snake in the same context, it just doesn't make sense. muahahah

 

ps. the point was that the technology arguement could be valid, but the economics they hinge on are flawed. the tech is there. the price to help humanity hasn't been met yet.

Nor will it ever be met. You may get a few isolated victories here and there but if you think somehow one day Capitalist greed and human rights will be synonymous and globally sustainable then you are a damn fool.

 

shifting responcibility could mean showing corporations that consumer interests have changed. if we can get them to think they could make money of saving the world then ok, lets do that. the problem with giving technology time is that we don't know how much time we have. since the corporations are spying on us all the time, we have to show them sustainibility is number 1.

 

khy,

No, because you're still working under the Capitalist system and still trying to cater your goals to match their ideals. Not only is this un-Islamic but also a complete waste of time if you consider the feasability of trying to reconcile two completely contradicting ideologies. The only solution is to strip the power from these corporations at its source. If the actual problem is Capitalism then why not address that? muahahah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eating snakes is Haram. Although it would be permissible if you were in a life or death situation, then you could eat just enough snakes to survive. However if this necessity is an inevitable result of you 'camping in the backyard' then the act of camping itself becomes Haram for you. So either way you cannot advocate for someone to go camping AND eat a snake in the same context, it just doesn't make sense. muahahah

 

I was advocating eating LOLLY snakes. They are eco-friendly...well not really, since their production does involve the burning of greenhouse gases, but at least they are lolly and not haram. <_<

 

Well, I will be observing earth hour, camping or no camping <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nor will it ever be met. You may get a few isolated victories here and there but if you think somehow one day Capitalist greed and human rights will be synonymous and globally sustainable then you are a damn fool.

 

 

so... "capitalist greed" and sustainiblity are polar opposites... as muslims what side do we choose? find me a legitimate scholar who will say we should side with greed(a sin) and I'll leave you alone. I can find islamic scources to back up sustainibility, I have found them, and showed them to everyone here. living green is living the green deen.

 

No, because you're still working under the Capitalist system and still trying to cater your goals to match their ideals. Not only is this un-Islamic but also a complete waste of time if you consider the feasability of trying to reconcile two completely contradicting ideologies. The only solution is to strip the power from these corporations at its source. If the actual problem is Capitalism then why not address that? muahahah

 

so sustainibility won't work under current capitalism, interesting (I think we say that idea in another thread). capitalis greed is unislamic... capitalist greed is based on not caring who you step on to get what you want, ie the justification of slave labour and rescource abuse. how else do you strip a corporation of it's power, but to boycott it? capitalism is not the problem, a fairtrade, free market is a just market.(the prophet was a merchant, he was a capitalist I presume, but he did not horde, nore did he say it was ok to have a monopoly, nor did he abuse his rescources, nor did he mistreat his workers) the abuse of human rights and rescources is what ruins capitalism. as for addressing it, we did. <_< but this is what we got in responce:

 

http://maniacmuslim.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17372

 

khy,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×