What Happens If Someone Tries A Discussion About "Ecology Versus Economy " ("Climate Change") Upon This Forum

It seems to me that this topic is too complicated for those who care only about their own comfort. For such people, ecology is not something fundamental. Those who do a little research on the subject know that everyone can contribute to saving the planet. It is enough to use eco-friendly bags, reduce plastic consumption or even sort garbage. But this does not exclude the fact that we must deal with it, especially during repairs, we need especially durable [removed by mod] Such bags are more durable, and you can count on the fact that everything you need will be disposed of.

Bravo.  I totally agree.  I was a bit worried about reading a few comments but I think this is true.

! (This is another digression! But Yes, Good-O ! WWW is being enforced upon all of us... even Me, whose devices are old (4 years) and crash and I have to sign in aaaagaaaaaain... just to write this reply! The latter parts of My reply were I hope written for ALL who read this to heed. I say that I am Thanking too much... Plastic so Yellow and Round and Bold! ThankYou,Thanks,Ta, Handshake, etc. etc. (!). Keep on being You and take it easy!) 

(I might regret posting this in the morning... but I miss certain other people who were also as STRONG + POLITE upon this Forum, and You stand up to SPAM/TROLLS, so I keep trying to say that I appreciate that. I had better end this now... I do not agree with everything said and am, as I said, sort of learning from a lot of it.)

   I never get upset or angry on a forum - it's the internet - it's not real..  

She isn't an adult, she's barely over sixteen. She can get married in Scotland (with the permission of her parents), but can no longer buy cigarettes there... 

You think George Soros has that much power? One man? A Jewish man? Sounds like a ridiculous conspiracy theory to me, especially considering the fact there are many more people who are richer and more powerful than him. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett being two examples, who have at least ten times as much money than he does.

...Hi Mr.Plastic, You *are* always so strong, yet flexible and happy ...!   *ahem*... 

For this post I mean to say Thanks again (so often here, sorry if it gets a bit annoying to anyone!)... My only opposition to that Post is that I would say that it is not just "communism" - BUT - I do agree if You meant/used the word "communism" as a kind of Noun or Adjective, meaning it is a Communist trait used in Capitalist societies (ours) and in other societies as well...?

...In any case, I am glad someone else gets it. And this next is aimed at others reading also - please do not get too argumentative or angry, and if feeling so, take a breather for a bit and maybe come back when calm. I MUST SAY that had I known that that Greta-person would start such vehemence then I would have begun a separate Thread about that person as well as this one instead.

...But again I say, I am grateful for knowing the opinions of others, and so for how this Thread is so far. Everyone seems to have a little bit which I agree with, and a large bit which I could not know (factions, persons, technical terms), and that is why I am grateful for starting this.

I shall try to contribute when I can. But still nothing about the "Radiation" aspect I first suggested, hmmm...  

( ...To TinyExplorer... Again, Thanks. So many disparate things going on, so little *United* common sense...

Assuming that by "Caws" You mean "Cows" (!)... then I do understand this... it is simply "passing the buck" - or rather, blaming "Green House Gas Emission" upon something other than Human Overpopulation. It makes sense to do this in a sort of "sweep it under the carpet" way (i.e. in Industrial Society!)... but developing the TECH to do so creates more 'Processing', and that offsets what is saved by doing stuff to any Cows... so, yes I get this. It is a pity, really.

...In pollution - food cannot be grown in sufficient quantity to feed those who enlarge pollution. So ?blame the food, not the Overpopulation?...  something like that...)

You need to understand the manipulation of the data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhjZI0ceSBQ

All people are occasionally wrong or right. One can disagree with the climate campaign. But it shouldn't involve the attacks on autism. Whether we agree or not, Greta is adult now, she has the right to autonomy of her body and mind. She is doing what she is doing out of free will, not because of others.

It is more important to point out Greta is a rich girl, and her solutions are ones that rich people will be able to bear better than the poor people they are inflicted on. As people keep saying - and rightly in this case - if they are so serious about pollution, why not protest China? China's pollution is horrific and not subject to the same kinds of safeguards that developed countries are. Their manufacturing methods are highly polluting (and sometimes involve prison camp labour)... yet barely a squeak from her and her mates about the place.

Of course they do. Every time she is criticised, her supporters say "but she is autistic." Here's the thing - autistic people often say things which are wrong. Autism doesn't make you automatically right. Manmade climate change is real, but Greta is just a shill for other people.

Shame on the people who exploit her autism for their own ends!!!

I don't think anthropogenic climate change* is a fake, but I do think Greta Thunberg's media persona is an utter fake. And shame on the adults who have used an autistic child to shield their tactics from criticism!!!

* This is the correct phrase. "Climate change" has happened throughout the world's history. "Anthropogenic" is the manmade stuff.

Beef for example contributes to green house gases in its most natural unprocessed form. The caws release so much methane from their digestive system, that it is on of significant contributors to green house problem,. Currently mostly rich people and nations eat beef. I understand scientists worry that if beef consumption were scaled to the developing countries, the methane emissions would become very problematic. Based on this there were voiced to stop eating meet all together, which I find reactionary.

Coming  back to my point about innovation, I saw in the news somebody working on capturing methane inside the cow. If this doesn't work, we might in a distant future be eating hydroponic lab grown meet :(

completely wrong

Exactly - "How Dare You" question St Greta,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTXdhTwO320

She's totally FAKE.

Disambiguating Cynosure said:

' People who actually grow food are not allowed to eat the food which they themselves grew due to Economy, which is food that people who are rich can purchase in excess but cannot grow in their own Environment. '

This is classic communism - the worker is exploited and his labour is stolen from him so the government can decide what portion he is allowed to have back.    It ALWAYS ends badly.

And never the twain shall meet.

Me again. Here is another fundament about My starting this Thread...

' People who actually grow food are not allowed to eat the food which they themselves grew due to Economy, which is food that people who are rich can purchase in excess but cannot grow in their own Environment. '

...Or maybe I should start another Thread, but this Thread relates to this fundament. It is another thing which is not really considered, just like Overpopulation and Radiation. (I am just seeking opinion or seeing if anyone else here understands this dichotomy... please do not post to much "hate", anyone...?)

Hi, to TinyExplorer and Aidie...

Tinyexplorer said:

Natural produce will become a luxury for the rich.

aidie said:

no one knows for sure 

...I keep Thanking everyone, but I really meant it. The thing is... this IS a thing which IS already - and loooong - been happening. "processed" food is very very cheap --- adding Levulose (Sugar), or Carbohydrates, or Pork poroducts if needing "meat". 

In the general sense, "PROCESSING" is CARBONIZING everything. It is a complicted thing - Chemistry - to begin to study, but it is totally worth the effort of learning about it.

How this relates to My agreeing with what You both say here, and My attempting this Thread, is -- YES the "rich" ARE allowed/can afford to eat what is basically not Carbonized. If You can afford "expensive" foods then then these will have a very different effect upon a body not used to eating them. In the very base sense, it is the same as trying an "exotic" food...

...But to add even more more confusion to this Thread... the more a food is processed, then the more it contributes towards the Economy/'climate change'...!

...I am reeealy suspecting that no-one upon here knows what I mean? (So much disparity, so little allowance...)