Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

michael murphy

New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About michael murphy

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 08/02/1982
  1. I found this on Digg and thought it was particularly relevant to this thread:
  2. It's a common fallacy to label the party "far left" but the fact remains that the Democrats are firmly centrist when compared to their counterparts in the other Western democracies. Besides, I think the left/right dichotomy is simplistic and misleading. The Democratic Party includes a panoply of opposed factions and ideologies just as the Republican Party does. A multiparty system would broaden the national discourse to include ideas currently marginalized within each party. The Democrats have chosen to begin personal attacks on McCain because that's what the GOP has done to them for yea
  3. It continues to astonish me how strongly people cling to the capitalist system even when it fails them so spectacularly.
  4. I don't know why it keeps being interpreted as an "either-or" choice. I don't see why we can't abandon unsustainable technology and use new sustainable technologies to mitigate some of the alterations we've made.
  5. That's not really true, mountainhiker. The "global cooling" rumor is based on thoroughly debunked studies from the 70s. There are occasional dips in the global temperature but the overall trend has been an increase over the last 200 years. In reference to your main point, the fact that we can't know everything isn't necessarily a reason to avoid action entirely. We don't know how gravity works yet, but we can still build airplanes and helicopters. As I mentioned before, an absence of complete knowledge implies a need for caution, not inaction. Anyway, I think we can agree that the first
  6. I don't know that anybody brought up capitalism. In any case, I feel that although the problem runs deeper than economics, capitalism is a factor that will need to be addressed. However, right now the free market is a Sacred Cow, even with the current crisis. Directly opposing the capitalist system will hurt the ecology movement in the short-term. I forget who said it first but, "the new world will grow within the old." I think we have to work with the system we have until we can supplant it with a postcapitalist one. I've always felt terms like "playing god" are unhelpful--although to
  7. I agree with all that. But my question is, what about intentionally working to change the climate to undo what we've done? Methods like carbon drawdown and sequestering would do just that.
  8. The studies are in. No matter what we do, climate change has enough momentum to carry it forward for some time. So the question I'm putting to everyone is this: should we undo what we've done? Carbon drawdown, carbon sequestering, resalinization of the ocean; lots of "solutions" have been floated to get us out of this self-inflicted mess. Obviously we have to eliminate our reliance on carbon-based fuels, but should we attempt to take more direct action? What do you all think?
  9. Looking back at the 1990s, the Green Party in America was growing fast. It gained national attention with the 1996 Presidential Campaign of Ralph Nader. In 2000, Nader's 2nd campaign put the Greens in the spotlight as never before. And then George W. Bush became president. Eight years later, rightly or wrongly, Nader has been tarnished as the Great Spoiler and much of the young activists that were involved in the Green Party turned their attentions to Obama. What do you think about the future of the Green Party in the United States? Will they ever break the Two Party system? What will
  10. Method products can be found here. I've used them and they work great but I wondered if anyone here knew just how green they really are.
  11. What's the score on Method products? As far as I can tell, they're among the Greenest household products you can get. Anybody hear differently?
  12. I think the misanthropic elements of the Green movement are misguided. Homo sapiens is over 200,000 years old and only really became a problem when it began subverting entire ecosystems into the production of human food 10,000 years ago. There's nothing inherently wrong with humankind, we've just adopted a lifestyle that requires us to consume the biosphere for it to continue. Btw, I'm new to this forum...Hi everybody :-)
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from. To find out more, please read our Privacy Policy. By choosing I Accept, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.