an international initiative to unite armies against environmental crisis we are

[RulesParticipant 55]

An international initiative to unite armies against environmental crisis we are heading

A group of scientists(mostly from Finland) say that there is big hurry if we want to save the world. They claim that a realistic plan of saving the world would be redistributing rearmament money into environmental projects.
The group says that the annual army budgets around the world is 1.500.000.000.000 euros. They say that it has been calculated that 1/6 of that money would be enough to make Sahara desert green i.e. forest it. They also say that money should also be used to fund education in different countries and to fund other environmental and social projects.
The goal of the group is to collect signings to the campaign and introduce it to UN. They hope that it would lead to negotiations and actions among the superpowers worldwide to aim military budgets to environmental projects.
However, they dont believe that uniting the armies could be realisitic within short period of time e.g. wihtin 5-10 years. One superpower wont cut their military budget if other countries dont cut too. That is why they hope that the UN could be leading the negotiations.
Their website is very “old-school” looking but dont let it bother. You can support their initiative via the link.
http://unite-the-armies.org/en/votes/new#sign

[Anonymous 1]

You are not gonna save the planet, the planet will be fine, we will be gone. And there is no way that you can avoid that, we are just a failed evolution.

[Freeman_KParticipant 3524]

Plastic. Assholes

Probably not the best place to recruite armies though.

The choices we make, not the chances we take, determine our destiny

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

And then he said: “We’ll use military budgets to make Sahara desert green”

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[BlacqueJacqueShellacqueParticipant 6890]

@russky, I am still smiling. The smile is hurting my face. Thanks.

[Anonymous 3]

This is totally irrational.

First, human beings are violent. There is never been a time in history without war and violence.
The civilizations the failed to prepare for war where decimated.

Second, present day prosperity depends of the destruction of nature and exploration of man by man.
Everybody is against it until they have to compromise their comforts.

Third, as Math said, our planet will be fine. Nature has killed more species than exist today. One million years is a blink of an eye of the planet. Not one trace of man will remain after this time.

I say: Save humanity, let us return to a more natural relationship with the world and eachother. Instead we are straying away from this to every kind of intelectualized folly. We are doomed.

This site is the perfect reflection of this. We are living proof that relationships between men and women are down the toilet.

What kind of specie can survive this?

Where are the initiatives to solve this critical human problem?

[Chaff/FlareParticipant 3235]

Anonymous wrote:

This site is the perfect reflection of this. We are living proof that relationships between men and women are down the toilet.

I think we are perfecting the relationship between men and women.

When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to reflect.

[Anonymous 3]

Chaff/Flare wrote:

I think we are perfecting the relationship between men and women.

Not under women’s opinion…

But I agree with you.

[narwhalParticipant]

Rules wrote:

They claim that a realistic plan of saving the world would be redistributing rearmament money into environmental projects.

Why defense money? Why not ask women to buy no makeup, no boob jobs, and no divorces for a year. Send them that money.

Ok. Then do it.

[Nathan R. JessepParticipant 1102]

Anonymous wrote:

Second, present day prosperity depends of the destruction of nature and exploration of man by man.
Everybody is against it until they have to compromise their comforts.

Incorrect. Nature does not need to be destroyed for humans to be prosperous. That’s simply an excuse for people to look the other way and go on with their lives ignoring it (i.e. the black pill vs. the green pill).

[Nathan R. JessepParticipant 1102]

Anonymous wrote:

First, human beings are violent. There is never been a time in history without war and violence.
The civilizations the failed to prepare for war where decimated.

This is true, but our military-industrial complex has created a military that far surpasses our needs. We could cut the military budget by 10% by removing programs that generals don’t even want (but Congress still funds) and the military’s effectiveness would not be impacted whatsoever.

[SamsquanchParticipant 4226]

They could use the money doled out to single mother’s and people defrauding disability/unemployment.

[Anonymous 3]

Nathan R. Jessep wrote:

Nature does not need to be destroyed for humans to be prosperous. That’s simply an excuse for people to look the other way and go on with their lives ignoring it.

North Africa was once the “Granary of Rome”, until Romans caused an ecological disaster by overproduction. It would take a thousand years for a really sustainable agricultural society to appear in the Middle Ages. The same times are now considered backwards.

In our days China and Asian countries are doing most of the industrial production. Why?
Because they don’t have ecological concerns and are ready to explore man for profit in a truly Dickensian way.

So, our Western ecological and human principles are full of hypocritical s~~~.

We just want the cheap products. We don’t care who and what gets destroyed to get them at that price, as long as it is far away.

If we try to make any industrial product in the west and we will learn this truth: it is expensive to be concerned with ecology and labor rights. We get thrown out of business by the ones that do not care.

It is a truly Darwinian process: survival of the cheapest = the most destructive.

[Nathan R. JessepParticipant 1102]

Anonymous wrote:

Nathan R. Jessep wrote:

Nature does not need to be destroyed for humans to be prosperous. That’s simply an excuse for people to look the other way and go on with their lives ignoring it.

North Africa was once the “Granary of Rome”, until Romans caused an ecological disaster by overproduction. It would take a thousand years for a really sustainable agricultural society to appear in the Middle Ages. The same times are now considered backwards.

In our days China and Asian countries are doing most of the industrial production. Why?
Because they don’t have ecological concerns and are ready to explore man for profit in a truly Dickensian way.

So, our Western ecological and human principles are full of hypocritical s~~~.

We just want the cheap products. We don’t care who and what gets destroyed to get them at that price, as long as it is far away.

If we try to make any industrial product in the west and we will learn this truth: it is expensive to be concerned with ecology and labor rights. We get thrown out of business by the ones that do not care.

It is a truly Darwinian process: survival of the cheapest = the most destructive.

I see what you’re saying – there will always be a country that sells out their environment to make money and we will always take advantage of that to make products cheap.

[OldBillParticipant]

Rules wrote:

An international initiative to unite armies against environmental crisis we are heading.

This is a joke, right? No one naive enough or stupid enough to believe something like this would work.

Military budgets should definitely be cut worldwide and I say that as a 30 year veteran. However, only an idiot or someone with no conception of reality would think a Western NGO could blithely skip into some Third World environmental disaster and make everything alright. Only an idiot or fool would believe that because only an idiot or fool would ignore the fact that the people there are part of the disaster.

You want to reforest the Sahara, assclown? Fine. Then tell me what to do with the Tuaregs who already live there, dips~~~.

They are not going to be happy when you start building all the irrigation systems, roads, camps, airstrips, and other infrastructure your project requires. The Tuaregs are not going to want to change and you’re only going to be able to buy off a fraction of them. The Tuaregs are going to burn your projects down and kill your workers. You’re going to have to either forcibly relocate them all or kill them.

Congratulations, you clueless f~~~ing douchebag, you just destroyed a culture and most likely committed genocide just so you could feel good about planting trees in a f~~~ing desert. Take a bow.

Beginning to understand? There’s a very specific road paved with the types of good intentions you have.

The problem is the same wherever you’ll go. Want to fix Haiti? You’ll need to “fix” the Haitians. Fix Nigeria? Fix the Sudan? Somalia? Chiapas? Timor? The root problem is the same: The people on the spot.

You can change them, move them, or kill them. Changing them will take generations, centuries, and it still might not work. Besides, changing them will kill those cultures weak minded morons bleat about so much. Moving them means they’ll just f~~~ up their new homes. So what’s left? Are you ready to kill them to “save” the planet?

The trouble is that too many people in the West think the rest of the world is just like them. They fly off to holiday resorts protected by barbwire, drink by the pool, are waited on by tame locals, and never see the real Mexico, Aruba, Seychelles, etc. As Europe is learning the hard way, the world is populated by people who cut off your head, rape your wife, enslave your children, and suck the marrow from your bones. They hate you for what you have and what you represent and they have no compunction about “expressing” that hate.

This “initiative” is idiocy. It’s something dreamed up by college freshman in a coffee shop. It’s something that only those with no concept of reality would believe.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

All these efforts and initiatives and other bulls~~~ to “save the planet” are just environmental masturbation as long as we keep giving stupid, selfish little girls a monthly check to keep s~~~ting out hungry mouths they can’t afford to feed, expecting the rest of us to feed them.

Until you address overpopulation, everything else is just p~~~ing in the wind. And incentivizing unsustainable breeding through socialist welfare programs is not addressing overpopulation.

Only when I see them actually cut off welfare for new pregnancies will I believe they are serious about the environment.

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

The human race has faced many times when survival was difficult. Even recently we worried about global over population. But now fertility rates are dropping so problem appears to be solving itself. As societies prosper so their birth rates fall. Next it will be India and China.

If the planet really overheats, even the Chinese will reduce pollution. But not before then.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Learn to critically think for yourself. I’ll show you how first pay attention to what I bold and think of why I bolded it:

Rules wrote:

An international initiative to unite armies against environmental crisis we are heading

A group of scientists(mostly from Finland) say that there is big hurry if we want to save the world. They claim that a realistic plan of saving the world would be redistributing rearmament money into environmental projects.
The group says that the annual army budgets around the world is 1.500.000.000.000 euros. They say that it has been calculated that 1/6 of that sweet money would be enough to make Sahara desert green i.e. forest it (because that’s not it’s own ecosystem or anything). They also say that money should also be used to fund education in different countries and to fund other environmental and social projects.
The goal of the group is to collect signings to the campaign and introduce it to UN. They hope that it would lead to negotiations and actions among the superpowers worldwide to aim military budgets to environmental projects.
However, they dont believe that uniting the armies could be realisitic within short period of time e.g. wihtin 5-10 years. One superpower wont cut their military budget if other countries dont cut too. That is why they hope that the UN could be leading the negotiations.
Their website is very “old-school” looking but dont let it bother. You can support their initiative via the link.
http://unite-the-armies.org/en/votes/new#sign

It’s all about money. Want proof? Why don’t environmentalist constantly operate in India. I’ll tell you why below:

Because INDIA’s population is mostly poor. Why don’t these finland scientists show how committed they are to the environment and not free tax dollars and already start getting the Ganges River and India cleaned up with local education, clean up, and other projects? Because it isn’t about environmental green, it is about their wallets being full of green MONEY.

[Author]

Posts