Green Peace have problem deciphering fact from opinion.

Facts 1&2 are reported headlines in news papers.So reporters accurately describe all events?
Fact 4 Japanese whalers may have history of aggression,so all criminals are responible for any nominated crimes?
Fact 5 They have a policy of non violence, yet we all get a little heated in times of stress and do things that run against our principles.

I agree with Green Peace's stance on whaling,but like all extreme groups they think that their ideology is the only way and don't consider the broader underlying problems such as over population when attacking Govts and industry.

Robert, Profound thanks.

Your post regarding myself describes the person I would wish to be seen as being and do my best to be.
Recognising my “feet of clay”, re “I'm not sure if Col always gets this right “ as a very accurate observation to my some impulsive / spontaneous aspects of my nature (which I will try hard to curb).

You are correct, playing the Devils advocate is necessary to instil the appropriate sense of “gravity” into the issue of population explosion, from which all other human produced environmental /global issues stem and against which, quite honestly all other environmental / global issues pale into insignificance.

Fix the “population” results in

Fixing
The looming water crisis and river pollution
Deforestation
Ocean degradation and over fishing

Etc.

It reduces the pressure on
Remaining Oil resources
The need for more nuclear power plants (still no solution to the waste)
Human competition with other species.

Etc

And Greenpeace go around harassing Japanese Whalers as if that were the only issue that mattered.

Greenpeace know how to ply the emotions. They know there are more dollars to be gleaned from their sponsors seeing a harpoon hit a whale than some Indian peasant have a vasectomy.

I have no problem with “Marketing”, I use it, we all benefit from it. But lets not be fooled. It, like any other capability, can be used or abused.

And Greenpeace are just better at abusing it than most.

Arjay I concur with your summation.

Col…

The looming water crisis and river pollution? Do you know that over one third of this country’s fresh water is used to raise livestock?

Deforestation? Same problem – chain clearing of land to make room for livestock. It takes 17 grams of grain to produce 1 gram of meat.

Livestock also pollute the air and waterways and, unlike crops, give no oxygen back to the environment.

Over-fishing? Not everyone fishes, and those who do so are doing it in an unsustainable manner.

Since I'm a vegetarian I can say that I contribute little to these problems.

What needs to be addressed are the sustainability laws. Your view that we should control the population verges on political genocide and infringes on one of the most fundamental human rights – the right to reproduce.

Your obsession with viewing the population crisis in isolation from other variables is like trying to put together a puzzle without using all the pieces. Your insistance in trying to do so is moronic.

As for continually using the word ‘mankind’, you have inadequately attempted to defend yourself before on this matter so I shall elaborate:

You seem to have missed my point. The fact that you include both women and men in the term is the very problem! You include both genders in a term directed at ‘humans’ that was established at a time when it was accepted that men ‘ruled the earth’.

Many words start with the letters ‘m’, ‘e’ and ‘n’, in that order. On most instances that fact has nothing to do with any gendered persuasion. To use an example that you once gave me, the ‘men’ in menopause has nothing to do with men, whereas the ‘man’ in mankind does, if you would care to check the origins of such terms. Probably not, since you seem so comfortable in your ignorance.

Similar problems:

Man has graced this earth for over 1 million years…
Since white man settled in Australia…
Cave-man…
Man, himself has evolved etc etc etc.

Any modern university would rightfully mark you down significantly for using such non-inclusive language.