jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (39 posts)

Agenda 21

  1. phion profile image61
    phionposted 4 years ago

    Do you know what it is?

    1. phion profile image61
      phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Shocker No One! Not surprised with the current state of the union.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The horror a plan for greater ecological sustainability! which has the support of EVERY SINGLE major climate body IN THE WORLD. It is simple scientific necessity at this point.

      As for the UN "took our guns" or trying to that never happened, it was entirely in your heads, the UN resolution passed and took full effect months ago, do you still have your guns? I still have mine.

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        'Owning property' is listed as 'unsustainable' by Agenda 21 - I know you're a socialist and everything, but do you not think this could be abused in any way?

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Unsustainable things:
          "Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment."

          I don't know about you but I don't like the sound of being persecuted for building a fence.

          "Economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment." is also so vague that it could mean anything - would it settle for letting the individual who owns a piece of land look after it themselves? After all, it's in their interest to make sure their own land isn't polluted.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You can argue with science all you like you will continue to be wrong forever, it's pure scientific fact that those things mentioned are unsustainable, methods of changing that can range from proper education to some sort of totalitarian kill everyone who disagrees storm trooper style regime which you of course immediately jump to out of pure reactionism.

            This is not a moral argument (how it is implemented can be but is not being debated here as yet) it's a scientific and factual one and sticking our heads int eh sand because the reality displeases us is possibly the most immature reaction possible.

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am talking about how it gets implemented really - how exactly are you going to stop me from building a fence on my own land? It is, after all, my own private property.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And as I said there are a wide variety of ways to do that, even if it was legislative, legal guidance of private land for the common good is neither new nor very controversial, we have zoning laws, fire codes and regulations on groundwater pollution etc etc.

                At the most extreme scenario I imagine we will see something like a fence tax that creates economic incentive to not have fencing due to the massive ecological cost of it, from my utilitarian perspective the "horror" of something like a fence tax is utterly laughable when compared to the factual ecological crisis we need to deal with, doing things that hurt others is not OK just because you do it on your land.

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Really?  It's a scientific fact that grazing of livestock is unsustainable?  Or plowing fields?  Cutting trees is unsustainable?

              We must have different definitions of "unsustainable" as humanity has been doing these things for thousands of years, ever since we graduated from the hunter-gatherer stage.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yup those things are scientifically unsustainable #1 in their modern sale and #2 in the context of our other pollution #3 in the context of our rising population.

                So simply yes those things are unsustainable.

                1. Barefootfae profile image60
                  Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Josak I have come to observe you will believe anything you are told by sources of a certain direction.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    When they are proven scientific facts I do indeed accept them, only fools do not.

              2. ThompsonPen profile image83
                ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, livestock create a lot of damage to land. Unless there are many many acres that livestock can be grass fed on and rotate fields, it does a lot of damage. Never mind how much poop they produces, the amount of water that it consumed, the energy it takes to raise them. If they were free to roam, and we were free to hunt them, the meant would be leaner and healthier, we would be leaner and healthier, and the environment would be healthier. Just a thought.

            3. ptosis profile image79
              ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, science is not immune from politics and is not above the fray as if totally objective. I'm not arguing - but publishing science as if there is only one answer is not science. Should keep an open mind and always argue with evidence.

              Sustainable development for who & how many people? What does  "islands of human habitation" mean to you?

              ''The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter, the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter - all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.'' - William Pitt, the elder, Earl of Chatham, speech in the House of Lords.--Henry Peter Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen Who Flourished in the Time of George III, vol. 1, p. 52 (1839). 

              http://bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004012257_Display-35.gif
              http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-488-488-90/37/3755/DEJZF00Z/posters/change-is-good-you-go-first.jpg

              According to UN21 - high-density cities is 'good' for sustainability convincing the masses to return to urban underclass squalor as a religion to Earth, as if Earth was in danger. Earth will be just fine. People I don't think so.

              http://enpundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kowloon-walled-city-hong-kong.jpg

              This is not a computer generated image - this is for real.

              Kowloon “Walled City” in Hong Kong, most densely populated land in history, 33,000 in 6.5 acres in 1987 translating to 1,255,000 people/km2. Drug dealers, rampant gang activity, prostitution, illegal businesses, and amateur dentists. Demolished in the early 1990s
              http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdp5o3iAbe1qjfabpo1_400.jpghttp://s1.hubimg.com/u/7387920_f248.jpghttp://s1.hubimg.com/u/7387928_f248.jpg

              As far as open space, the green spots around freeways and intersections, pocket parks, etc, used to be where the homeless lived. Now get a ticket for sleeping in the park even if right next to the road that overrides the 'broken paddle' rule in Honolulu. Basically not legal to be poor in public. Can't even sleep under bridges or overpasses. Honolulu now says a using a purse or knapsack as a pillow is 'camping'. And lambs have 5 legs.

              1. Barefootfae profile image60
                Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ok....ski runs?
                Grazing livestock?

                Regale us with your scientific acumen.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Grazing livestock is simple and blindingly obvious, most livestock produce prodigious quantities of methane gas which is one of the most harmful greenhouse gases around, furthermore grazing cattle cause soil erosion and can lead to top soil disappearing (especially when combined with the extreme weather patterns increasingly caused by global warming), feed used to raise such animals is largely soy which is very damaging to soil quantity and most importantly meat production is incredibly inefficient to produce an equal amount calories in livestock as in agriculture 14 times the amount of land and 60+ times the amount of water must be used.

                  As for ski runs they are the lesser of the above mentioned but they lead to massive deforestation to create them and further environmental damage and deforestation through avalanches.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ***

      2. CHRIS57 profile image61
        CHRIS57posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, i know about this 20 year old paper on sustainable development.
        To reflect the contents you have to adopt some kind of long term thinking, thinking in decades and generations.
        I understand this is not easy in the USA where planning doesn´t go much beyond quartely earnings or monthly paychecks. Even government elections don´t create much stability with interchanging election of president and congress every 2 years.
        How is a mindset to develop to promote sustainable thinking in this environment?

        1. ptosis profile image79
          ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It doesn't. It's another form of social engineering that will turn "being green' into a religion to 'save the earth'.

          http://www.monstersandcritics.com/image.php?file=/downloads/downloads/articles3/1629709/article_images/green.jpg

    3. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 4 years ago

      Tell us. Is that the plan George Soros is behind?

      1. phion profile image61
        phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is another attempt to globalize our world under tyrannical rule for starters. There are plenty of searches that will tell you that it is just aiming to make a sustainable environment, but the true insidious goals are much more than just global warming avoidance.
        I don’t feel comfortable giving my main source out, but if you search the net and weed out the NWO BS pushers, then you can see the truth. The main thing now is to spread the word about it.
        I can’t hope to put out the full purpose of Agenda 21 here, but officially stated it is…
        “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globaly, nationally, and locally, by organizations of the United Nations System, governments, and major groups, in every area in which human impacts on the environment”
        It paves the way for extraordinary UN control, as if their attempt on our right to bear arms wasn’t enough.
        There are nine basic tenants of Agenda 21 :
        Move citizens off private land, and into urban housing
        Create vast wilderness spaces inhabited by large carnivores
        Eliminate cars, and create “walkable” cities
        Support chosen private businesses with public funds for “sustainable” purposes/development
        Make policy decisions that favor the “greater good” over individuals
        Drastically reduce the use of power, water, and anything else that creates “Carbon pollution”
        Use bureaucracies to make sweeping decisions outside of democratic processes
        Increase taxes, fees, and regulations
        Implement policies meant to incentivize reduced population
        I know it sounds crazy, so I hope you do your own research to seek the truth.

        1. 0
          DMartelonlineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Great list of stupid talking points from a number of discredited sources that anyone with acess to any plagiarism checker can verify (rolling eyes) (ha!)>  Try reading the damned thing instead of spreading bogus talking points: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_ … 1_00.shtml

    4. theupside profile image61
      theupsideposted 4 years ago

      I have a real hard copy of the report. What is stated is true. Agenda 21 is going to RUIN the world.

      DOWN WITH AGENDA 21!!

      Wait, no one hears me? Ahh shit.

    5. theupside profile image61
      theupsideposted 4 years ago

      Maybe all you people who believe that the world is overpopulated should go on and go and kill yourselves for the greater good? Since you really believe all your opinions are worth more than the average person's, you shall give them the example. Be the change so to speak?

      What? None of you educated folks are followers of Ghandi? I bet you are wink

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The conversation is not really about overpopulation the earth can sustain many many times the number of humans on it so long as those people are willing to invest just a small amount in not being overtly destructive, if anyone wants to be that change all they need do is minimize beef consumption and use more vegetables instead, make their mode of travel fuel efficient, conserve electricity and petition/vote for green energy alternatives or nuclear power.

        1. theupside profile image61
          theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am all for being constructive.. But come on... Beef? Fat people are the ones who abuse consumption and this causes the inequality in the world, but they get their just reward.. aka all the diseases that come with it. So live and let live. Action>Reaction. Responsibility needs to be taught first. And guess what, this doesn't cost ANYTHING!! No need to build nuclear power plants that are going to melt-down and liquefy us all from the inside out.. Most people lack self control, self confidence, and guidance. They need to stop watching so much TV and honestly take a look at themselves. Then change for the better... and it doesn't have to be for the rest of the world even. If everyone was thinking of themselves and became the thing they always wanted to be, things would fall into place after that. However. some are just gluttonous bastards, hell bent on being Rex Mundi, but those are rare.. fun to talk to though... Then you have to kill them or else we end up... well, look around?

      2. ThompsonPen profile image83
        ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Funny...I seem to have read this somewhere....

    6. theupside profile image61
      theupsideposted 4 years ago

      No this is sorta of where my thoughts lead me.. Freedom. The natural way is always the solution to effects of ''modernization.'' People eat more because they are bored, not because they need to. One good healthy meal a day is enough to live on. This shit ain't rocket science. That is why I laugh at the experts. Too much knowledge, not enough common sense.

      1. ptosis profile image79
        ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        -

        Hmmmm - ever wonder if maybe by your answer - and the fact that you have a computer means that you are self -evidently the small % who have more than enough?

        I know you are not from N. Korea. Koreans are naturally roundish  but not the N. Koreans - they are all skinny and the younger generation is even shorter than the older generation. in South Korea, the younger generation are almost 6 foot tall - with internet access...
        http://www.occupyforanimals.org/uploads/7/7/3/5/7735203/3780788.jpg?315http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/9/2/9/7/7/5/Biofuel-Starvation-65988397974.jpeghttp://www.makingitmagazine.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/global-forum_biofuels_busy-saving-planet.jpg

     
    working