ToDaZeD Values Argument

stark, ain’t it?

“Humans have the untapped potential to radically improve life on earth by using technology, not to “save” the planet but to improve it for human purposes.”

And that, there is the major difference in Values between the Proggies and the rest of the Humans.

It is most moral to “save” the planet from Humans.
It is most moral to utilize the resources of the planet to make Life better for Humans.

We think of our environment as something that starts out healthy and that we humans mess up. Not so. Nature does not give us a healthy environment to live in; until the fossil-fueled industrial revolution of the last two centuries, human beings lived in an environment that was low on useful resources and high on danger.

… If you want to see what “dirty” looks like, go to a country that is still living in “natural,” pre-industrial times. …natural smoke of a natural open fire burning natural wood or animal dung—the kind of air pollution that has been almost eliminated by modern, centralized power plants … water from a local brook that is naturally infested with the natural germs of all the local animals—the once-perennial threat that modern, fossil-fuel-powered water purification systems eliminate …

The “dirty” objection is just a convenient trick for people who really don’t like any kind of industrial development—people who think that there’s something unnatural and wrong about the modern, industrial way of life.

If solar or wind were good alternatives, they wouldn’t need political advocates; they’d win out on the market.

[It is] a policy of mass destruction. And unfortunately, it’s not an innocent mistake; the “environmentalist” leaders who hate fossil fuels also hate nuclear power and hydroelectric power, the only other two sources that have provided any significant affordable, reliable power.

This is a site worth watching, methinks.


  1. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 12:33 pm |

    That site’s mention of wind energy for electricity prompted a wild and crazy thought, a question for the “wind energy is the panacea” crowd:
    Their side insists human activity is increasing global temperatures and/or disturbing “normal” climate and weather patterns.
    1. IOW, they posit human activity involving fossil fuels is putting energy into the atmosphere.
    2. Wind farms extract energy from the atmosphere.
    3. If the wind weenies have their way, there will be millions of wind turbines scattered about the earth.
    4. Will these millions of energy extractors sucking energy out of prevailing winds disturb global wind currents and change local climates?
    5. Taken to the limit, will all earth’s winds whimper to stop a hundred years or so down the road, because the wind weenies extracted all the energy?
    6. Or will the earth’s rotation slow because of stagnant air friction, alternately freezing and frying half the earth?
    7. What then, Algore?
    I don’t take this seriously, having ignored what thermal radiation and all other exterior inputs might do, but I sure would like to mess with their closed minds.

  2. Fawkes News (V for Article V)
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 12:36 pm |

    “Greens” have a very simple energy policy. They’re against it.

    Or, as someone coined, Green is the new Red.

  3. DougM (quiet, keeps to himself, kind of a loner, nobody thought he’d do anything like this)
    Posted May 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm |

    This illustrates the sheer irrationality of radical greens.
    It’s mythology: a return-to-Eden con by those who really want political power. unjustified control over critical economic factors, or uninterrupted access to massive gov’t funding.

    The looter-elites will still have their cloud cities, of course.
    Only the proles and masses need bear the burden.