This Greenpeace Stunt May Have Irreparably Damaged Peru's Nazca Site

[GenesisNemesis]

A big "What the fuck were they thinking?" is in order...

When are they ever thinking?
Arresting those Greenpeace idiots is one of the few good things Putin has ever done.

Any more examples where they actually deserve to have criminal charges against them or are you just foaming at the mouth again?

 

[barbos]

Speaking of Putin, Greenpeace are pretty much green version of Pussy Riot.

 

[Bomb#20]

Speaking of Putin, Greenpeace are pretty much green version of Pussy Riot.

How do you figure that? Can't you tell the difference between a crime against an artwork and a crime against art?

 

[thebeave]

Yes, because people are morons and care more about how messages are delivered than the message itself.

It is possible to condemn Greenpeace for stupidity and also have much more condemnation for those destroying the environment as rapidly as possible.

I condemn Greenpeace for being more a part of the problem than they are a part of the solution. Absent these ill-informed nutters blocking nuclear power at every turn, we could be generating a much larger fraction of our power via almost carbon neutral fission by now, and the coal could stay in the ground where it belongs.

Good intentions are all very well, but they don't excuse counterproductive and damaging acts. Greenpeace do more harm to the environment than good, and this latest incident is just a tiny example of the vast harm this bunch of well meaning idiots cause.

Action without a basis in rationality rarely achieves a net benefit to society; and Greenpeace are an irrational cult, made up of people who genuinely believe that everyone would agree with them if only they were 'aware', despite their beliefs being founded in emotional nonsense, childish over simplification of complex problems, and a deep devotion to the naturalistic fallacy. Fucking idiots.

You seem to be condemning Greenpeace and their actions, which I agree with, but don't you think that same rationale applies to the recent protesters who have blocked roads, freeways, vandalized and looted businesses? I'm not clear why you don't support Greenpeace's actions but support the protesters actions. The motivations and actions seem to be largely the same between the two. Perhaps its just a matter of degree. If there is a difference between the two, its a very fine line, IMHO.

 

[dx713]

You seem to be condemning Greenpeace and their actions, which I agree with, but don't you think that same rationale applies to the recent protesters who have blocked roads, freeways, vandalized and looted businesses? I'm not clear why you don't support Greenpeace's actions but support the protesters actions. The motivations and actions seem to be largely the same between the two. Perhaps its just a matter of degree. If there is a difference between the two, its a very fine line, IMHO.

The difference doesn't seem so small to me.
There's a difference between inconveniencing first world commuters for a day and defacing and possibly causing permanent damage to a world unique archeological site.

Yes, because people are morons and care more about how messages are delivered than the message itself.

It is possible to condemn Greenpeace for stupidity and also have much more condemnation for those destroying the environment as rapidly as possible.

I condemn Greenpeace for being more a part of the problem than they are a part of the solution. Absent these ill-informed nutters blocking nuclear power at every turn, we could be generating a much larger fraction of our power via almost carbon neutral fission by now, and the coal could stay in the ground where it belongs.

Good intentions are all very well, but they don't excuse counterproductive and damaging acts. Greenpeace do more harm to the environment than good, and this latest incident is just a tiny example of the vast harm this bunch of well meaning idiots cause.

Action without a basis in rationality rarely achieves a net benefit to society; and Greenpeace are an irrational cult, made up of people who genuinely believe that everyone would agree with them if only they were 'aware', despite their beliefs being founded in emotional nonsense, childish over simplification of complex problems, and a deep devotion to the naturalistic fallacy. Fucking idiots.

To Greenpeace defense, if the nuclear safety authorities or nuclear power management in nuclear countries like France had really acted like they were independant authorities and transparent public servants instead of shills and salesmen for the nuclear power industry, it would help have a factual and appeased debate on the subject. (not to mention the government itself going as far as military violence against Greenpeace)

 

[Derec]

Any more examples where they actually deserve to have criminal charges against them or are you just foaming at the mouth again?

Illegally boarding drilling platforms is a crime. Damaging priceless world heritage artifacts is a crime.
Greenpeace like to engage in criminal activity for their stunts. Unfortunately, way too often they get away with it. I hope they do not this time.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's not like they toppled the Washington monument. Go back with some shovels, rakes, and hoes and fix the thing.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The medium by which this message was conveyed will do far more to cause people to reject the message than to cause people to accept the message.

Yes, because people are morons and care more about how messages are delivered than the message itself.

It is possible to condemn Greenpeace for stupidity and also have much more condemnation for those destroying the environment as rapidly as possible.

"It doesn't matter if what they do works, as long as their intentions are good." Now I understand every post you've made on politics and economics.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Illegally boarding drilling platforms is a crime.

Illegal acts are crimes.
That's a good thing to know.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think the thread should examine motivations behind the tactic.

Such moronic tactics strongly imply they are morons generally and calls into question their motives and the validity of their ideas.
It suggests, as most people already know, that many people behind Greenpeace (as with other eco-militants) are more in it for their own blind self-righteousness, and that it is a form of irrational religion whose original motives have been tainted by cultish narcissism, dogmatism, and tribalism that often derails initially well-intentioned leftist activism.
AGW is a real and a serious issue, but this stunt should make reasonable people disregard Greenpeace as a valid source of information about it, and look elsewhere toward less moronic people for valid info and suggested solutions.

 

[Mageth]

It's not like they toppled the Washington monument. Go back with some shovels, rakes, and hoes and fix the thing.

Did you pick up your Archaeology from Indiana Jones movies?

In any case, even if the damage done was minor and repairable, that would in no way excuse the boneheaded stunt...which once again is the point of this thread.

 

[Rhea]

It's not like they toppled the Washington monument. Go back with some shovels, rakes, and hoes and fix the thing.

Did you pick up your Archaeology from Indiana Jones movies?

In any case, even if the damage done was minor and repairable, that would in no way excuse the boneheaded stunt...which once again is the point of this thread.

(I think the sarcasm icon was in "hide" mode there...)

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's not like they toppled the Washington monument. Go back with some shovels, rakes, and hoes and fix the thing.

Did you pick up your Archaeology from Indiana Jones movies?

In any case, even if the damage done was minor and repairable, that would in no way excuse the boneheaded stunt...

Even aside from the archeology, the environment at that altitude, in the desert conditions, is very fragile. Doesn't bounce back all that well. It'll retain marks from the stunt and the cleanup for a long time. That's why the lines themselves persist.
Similarly, there are places on the old Oregon Trail where the wagon tracks are still visible. They're even a hazard on the golf course in Soda Springs, Idaho.

So, environmentalists chose to pretty much permanently scar the environment in order to make people respect the damage being done to the environment....

 

[Bronzeage]

It's not like they toppled the Washington monument. Go back with some shovels, rakes, and hoes and fix the thing.

Did you pick up your Archaeology from Indiana Jones movies?

In any case, even if the damage done was minor and repairable, that would in no way excuse the boneheaded stunt...which once again is the point of this thread.

(I think the sarcasm icon was in "hide" mode there...)

What Greenpeace did was stupid on a monumental scale. It was the work of people who did not understand the culture of the place, modern or ancient.

I'm in the business of selling old things to young people. One of the first lessons I learned in this business is, old things are are old because they survived. The second thing I learned was, not all old things are valuable. There's no reason to be too hard on them. We haven't done much better in our own home.

People have been making marks on the surface of this planet for tens of thousands of years. Wherever a large group lived, they left a mark. The only way for a mark to survive is for no one to ever make another mark on top of it. The only reason these lines still exist is because sometime after they were created, the land became uninhabitable. The conditions that drove humans from the region also preserved the marks they left behind. If it were still possible to live there, all the giant figures would have been plowed under, centuries ago.

Across the Mississippi River Valley and into the southeast US, there once were thousands of man made mounds of earth. Quite a few still survive. A few are burial mounds and the rest are just big piles of dirt. I've found a few, myself, while walking through the woods. Whether these were documented by scientists or historians, I have no idea. The great majority of the mounds are now parking lots, shopping centers and cornfields.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, because people are morons and care more about how messages are delivered than the message itself.

It is possible to condemn Greenpeace for stupidity and also have much more condemnation for those destroying the environment as rapidly as possible.

"It doesn't matter if what they do works, as long as their intentions are good." Now I understand every post you've made on politics and economics.

Since you don't comprehend this one I doubt you are able to comprehend many others.

I never said that all is good as long as their intentions are good.

There are two issues here.

One is this stunt by Greenpeace.

The other is the reason behind the stunt.

Just because Greenpeace did something stupid that in no way mitigates what is happening in terms of the destruction of the environment.

We are destroying the environment as fast as possible. The polluters own the government and the courts.

We are in a time of desperation and throwing feces at Greenpeace will not make anything better.

 

[bilby]

I condemn Greenpeace for being more a part of the problem than they are a part of the solution. Absent these ill-informed nutters blocking nuclear power at every turn, we could be generating a much larger fraction of our power via almost carbon neutral fission by now, and the coal could stay in the ground where it belongs.

Good intentions are all very well, but they don't excuse counterproductive and damaging acts. Greenpeace do more harm to the environment than good, and this latest incident is just a tiny example of the vast harm this bunch of well meaning idiots cause.

Action without a basis in rationality rarely achieves a net benefit to society; and Greenpeace are an irrational cult, made up of people who genuinely believe that everyone would agree with them if only they were 'aware', despite their beliefs being founded in emotional nonsense, childish over simplification of complex problems, and a deep devotion to the naturalistic fallacy. Fucking idiots.

You seem to be condemning Greenpeace and their actions, which I agree with, but don't you think that same rationale applies to the recent protesters who have blocked roads, freeways, vandalized and looted businesses? I'm not clear why you don't support Greenpeace's actions but support the protesters actions. The motivations and actions seem to be largely the same between the two. Perhaps its just a matter of degree. If there is a difference between the two, its a very fine line, IMHO.

Of course it's a matter of degree.

Making a few people late for work, in order to draw attention to a widely ignored abuse of a widely ignored community is reasonable.

Destroying an irreplaceable artifact in order to draw attention to a well known issue that affects everyone is insane. And is all the more insane when your prior actions have been focused on preventing a key element of the solution to that issue.

It's not a fine line at all. It is a huge gulf.

 

[bilby]

"It doesn't matter if what they do works, as long as their intentions are good." Now I understand every post you've made on politics and economics.

Since you don't comprehend this one I doubt you are able to comprehend many others.

I never said that all is good as long as their intentions are good.

There are two issues here.

One is this stunt by Greenpeace.

The other is the reason behind the stunt.

Just because Greenpeace did something stupid that in no way mitigates what is happening in terms of the destruction of the environment.

We are destroying the environment as fast as possible. The polluters own the government and the courts.

We are in a time of desperation and throwing feces at Greenpeace will not make anything better.

We are not so desperate that we should abandon reason.

Greenpeace as an organisation, do net harm to the environment - even before this stunt.

They should stop.

Until they stop, they should be condemned, ridiculed, and attacked, in order to make them stop.

If flinging shit at them will discourage their efforts, then pass the manure.

Their good intentions do not mitigate the harm that they do; they merely cloak it in self-righteousness. Like the inquisitor who when asked to stop burning heretics says 'but I am doing God's work', Greenpeace are damaging the environment and refuse to stop because they are 'environmentalists', and so believe that their ends justify their means.

 

[untermensche]

It's not a fine line at all. It is a huge gulf.

It's apples and oranges.

Holding up innocent commuters trapped in a rat race not of their choosing to survive and feed the 1% is one thing.

Walking near a historic site is another.

And a third is wasting precious resources that could be used to develop alternative energy sources but instead goes into further oil exploration and extraction.

Our goal should be to leave as much oil in the ground as possible.

We are removing it as fast as possible.

 

[untermensche]

We are not so desperate that we should abandon reason.

Right, we should not concentrate on very minor criminals and ignore huge criminals.

We shouldn't ignore the person burning down our house and focus on a flea on the dog.

Greenpeace as an organisation, do net harm to the environment - even before this stunt.

Show me the net harm to the environment.

Show me the good they have done and show me the bad.

They should stop.

Prove it.

 

[bilby]

Right, we should not concentrate on very minor criminals and ignore huge criminals.

We shouldn't ignore the person burning down our house and focus on a flea on the dog.

Greenpeace as an organisation, do net harm to the environment - even before this stunt.

Show me the net harm to the environment.

Show me the good they have done and show me the bad.

They should stop.

Prove it.

So you can ignore it again? No thanks.

Scroll up, if you really want to know.