Penn$$ vs. NYU($?) For a Not-Super-Liberal Student Forum

[float55]

OP, I'm genuinely curious, what are your issues with environmentalism?

Here's the most succinct way for me to put it: When environmentalists look at this picture, they fret over how bright it is, seeing all the light as a symbol of how we've polluted the environment and invaded pristine natural ecosystems. When I look at the same picture, my concern is over how dark it is. There's a billion people on the planet who lack basic access to electricity.

Millions of people die every year from respiratory illnesses because they have to cook over indoor fires. To them, coal-powered electrical plants would be a huge step towards "clean energy," but environmentalists are propagating an across-the-board stigma for all fossil fuels that is stopping governments and NGOs from supporting fossil-fueled development all over the world. The result is that poor countries stay poor, which means, among other terrible things, that the air they breath and the water they drink remain dirty. So I'm a bit tired of hearing environmentalists say they champion clean air and water; if they did, they'd champion economic development.

Malnutrition also kills millions every year, while GMOs have killed 0 people ever, yet many mainstream environmental groups are very successfully lobbying against GMOs.

The whole ideology is based on the idea that the human race is a bad thing, technology is a bad thing, and we need to shrink our population and be less wealthy. I frankly find it odd that the burden is on me to explain why such views are objectionable.

[UnicornHunter]

OP, I'm genuinely curious, what are your issues with environmentalism?

Here's the most succinct way for me to put it: When environmentalists look at this picture, they fret over how bright it is, seeing all the light as a symbol of how we've polluted the environment and invaded pristine natural ecosystems. When I look at the same picture, my concern is over how dark it is. There's a billion people on the planet who lack basic access to electricity.

Millions of people die every year from respiratory illnesses because they have to cook over indoor fires. To them, coal-powered electrical plants would be a huge step towards "clean energy," but environmentalists are propagating an across-the-board stigma for all fossil fuels that is stopping governments and NGOs from supporting fossil-fueled development all over the world. The result is that poor countries stay poor, which means, among other terrible things, that the air they breath and the water they drink remain dirty. So I'm a bit tired of hearing environmentalists say they champion clean air and water; if they did, they'd champion economic development.

Malnutrition also kills millions every year, while GMOs have killed 0 people ever, yet many mainstream environmental groups are very successfully lobbying against GMOs.

The whole ideology is based on the idea that the human race is a bad thing, technology is a bad thing, and we need to shrink our population and be less wealthy. I frankly find it odd that the burden is on me to explain why such views are objectionable.

I think you have an undeniable knack for looking at very non-controversial ideologies through the worst lens possible. You'll make a great "public intellectual." I mean that sincerely.

[buckiguy_sucks]

.

[beepboopbeep]

Malnutrition also kills millions every year, while GMOs have killed 0 people ever, yet many mainstream environmental groups are very successfully lobbying against GMOs.

The whole ideology is based on the idea that the human race is a bad thing, technology is a bad thing, and we need to shrink our population and be less wealthy. I frankly find it odd that the burden is on me to explain why such views are objectionable.

I think you have an undeniable knack for looking at very non-controversial ideologies through the worst lens possible. You'll make a great "public intellectual." I mean that sincerely.

Not to defend OP in the slightest--he is perhaps the most self-unaware toolbag I've seen on a site full of those--but the GMO thing and fossil fuel use in developing countries are legit controversial. Tying all that in to like some larger ideological battle over, like, whether technology is a good thing is pretty reductive / silly culture warrior shit, however. But such is the role of a "public intellectual", I guess. I don't know why anyone would aim to become the next Alain de Botton or how that relates to choosing NYU versus Penn, but whatever.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Malnutrition also kills millions every year, while GMOs have killed 0 people ever, yet many mainstream environmental groups are very successfully lobbying against GMOs.

The whole ideology is based on the idea that the human race is a bad thing, technology is a bad thing, and we need to shrink our population and be less wealthy. I frankly find it odd that the burden is on me to explain why such views are objectionable.

I think you have an undeniable knack for looking at very non-controversial ideologies through the worst lens possible. You'll make a great "public intellectual." I mean that sincerely.

Not to defend OP in the slightest--he is perhaps the most self-unaware toolbag I've seen on a site full of those--but the GMO thing and fossil fuel use in developing countries are legit controversial. Tying all that in to like some larger ideological battle over, like, whether technology is a good thing is pretty reductive and silly culture warrior shit, however.

They are controversial, but I think the non-controversial was probably referring to environmentalism writ large. There's clearly a baby/bathwater thing going on here.

[UnicornHunter]

Malnutrition also kills millions every year, while GMOs have killed 0 people ever, yet many mainstream environmental groups are very successfully lobbying against GMOs.

The whole ideology is based on the idea that the human race is a bad thing, technology is a bad thing, and we need to shrink our population and be less wealthy. I frankly find it odd that the burden is on me to explain why such views are objectionable.

I think you have an undeniable knack for looking at very non-controversial ideologies through the worst lens possible. You'll make a great "public intellectual." I mean that sincerely.

Not to defend OP in the slightest--he is perhaps the most self-unaware toolbag I've seen on a site full of those--but the GMO thing and fossil fuel use in developing countries are legit controversial. Tying all that in to like some larger ideological battle over, like, whether technology is a good thing is pretty reductive and silly culture warrior shit, however.

I'm on record on this site saying that liberals who are across the board opposed to GMOs are an embarrassment to the Democratic party, so I agree. But yea, environmentalism is about things like having national parks and not having our rivers catch on fire. The anti-GMO movement is a subset of a subset of the movement. If OP got shit for his views in undergrad, it's not because liburahls are intolerant assholes. And if he goes into law school railing against "environmentalism" when he's actually talking about balancing economic development with sustainable development in China, than it doesn't matter where OP goes to school because people are going to treat him like the mouth breather he is.*


edit: which actually leads me to my on-topic advice to OP. Adopt some nuance in your beliefs and you'll be fine wherever you go.

[beepboopbeep]

Not to defend OP in the slightest--he is perhaps the most self-unaware toolbag I've seen on a site full of those--but the GMO thing and fossil fuel use in developing countries are legit controversial. Tying all that in to like some larger ideological battle over, like, whether technology is a good thing is pretty reductive and silly culture warrior shit, however.

I'm on record on this site saying that liberals who are across the board opposed to GMOs are an embarrassment to the Democratic party, so I agree. But yea, environmentalism is about things like having national parks and not having our rivers catch on fire. The anti-GMO movement is a subset of a subset of the movement. If OP got shit for his views in undergrad, it's not because liburahls are intolerant assholes. And if he goes into law school railing against "environmentalism" when he's actually talking about balancing economic development with sustainable development in China, than it doesn't matter where OP goes to school because people are going to treat him like the mouth breather he is.*


edit: which actually leads me to my on-topic advice to OP. Adopt some nuance in your beliefs and you'll be fine wherever you go.

I can already hear OP responding to this. We can just do this thread without him and maybe then it will be less mind-AIDS.

"Look, I'm the nuanced and open-minded one here, and that's why I started this thread--if I even bring up these issues at all, the libuhruls shut down the discussion. Even if GMO use is a subset of environmentalism, they share the same ideological underpinnings, which are what I want to question. I want to find a place that's willing to consider alternative viewpoints."

...while doing a pretty crap job of that himself. But I guess that's the role of a public intellectual now, isn't it? Nuance might be injurious to his desired career path.

In seriousness, OP, listen to UnicornHunter. Or your soul will forever be lost to windbaggery.

edit: assuming non-flame, which is always my first assumption but for some reason you are pretty convincing at playing stupid.

[jbagelboy]

You can be okay with GMOs for the purpose of providing food to malnourished populations and still be pro-sustainability. Understanding that the current expansion of our rate of fossil fuel consumption will damage the planet and we need to actively control it doesn't preclude healthy economic growth for the developing world. Environmentalism is not the same as neo-Luddism.

[bjsesq]

Is the anti-gmo movement all that big? I thought it was a smallish group of retards.

[jbagelboy]

Is the anti-gmo movement all that big? I thought it was a smallish group of retards.

And most europeans. There are problems with our food industry. But americans moving to brattleboro to grow their own organic farms and only eat the cows they've met in person and hate on the entire commercial meat/produce market are more luny-tunes than main stream progressive.

[bjsesq]

If I could go back in time, I would blow Norman Borlaug and swallow the load. That's fucking sustainability, people.

[float55]

Is the anti-gmo movement all that big? I thought it was a smallish group of retards.

Well, here's a quote from a very large, wealthy, and politically influential group of retards called Greenpeace:

"We believe: GMOs should not be released into the environment [which basically means "used at all"] since there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health. We advocate immediate interim measures such as labelling of GE ingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops and seeds from conventional ones. We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity. When we force life forms and our world's food supply to conform to human economic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our own peril."

[bjsesq]

I guess I've just been so busy not giving a fuck about stupid Greenpeace and its stance on nuclear energy that their GMO stance snuck by unnoticed. Fuck em.

[UnicornHunter]

A: Greenpeace does not define environmentalism.

B: You see how you put your interpretation of what they were saying in brackets and how it obliterated all of the nuance in their position? That's why people don't like you.

[bjsesq]

A: Greenpeace does not define environmentalists.

B: You see how you put your interpretation of what they were saying in brackets and how it obliterated all of the nuance in their position? That's why people don't like you.

To be fair, if you are anti-GMO at this point you're anti-science and fuck you.

[bretby]

There, you've laid out your critique of feminism and only been mildly trolled about it. Now, environmentalism?

He really got off easy on that one. But perhaps more because his critique wasn't a critique but rather more like a few lackluster anecdotes....I'm disappointed in this conversation.

[UnicornHunter]

A: Greenpeace does not define environmentalists.

B: You see how you put your interpretation of what they were saying in brackets and how it obliterated all of the nuance in their position? That's why people don't like you.

To be fair, if you are anti-GMO at this point you're anti-science and fuck you.

Agreed

[bjsesq]

A: Greenpeace does not define environmentalists.

B: You see how you put your interpretation of what they were saying in brackets and how it obliterated all of the nuance in their position? That's why people don't like you.

To be fair, if you are anti-GMO at this point you're anti-science and fuck you.

Agreed

You are a damn fine poster, dude.

[hdunlop]

Still can't believe so many people say retards on these forums.

Love that OP basically has an entire thread of people agreeing with him that the more radical wing of the feminist movement is radical, that non-GMO people are just the pits, and even most agreeing that his parents are likely just ready for an upper middle class retirement -- and yet he's so hung up on strawmanning various ideologies that he's still pissing people off and somehow confused about why that's happening.

Dude if you want to be a public troll intellectual more power to you but you have to accept that there are going to be some consequences -- namely, people will be annoyed. Either take the same positions you have now but present them in a less annoying way, or be OK with people being annoyed with you. It turns out the 'radical' feminists and enviros you malign have the same problem. Like 80 percent of people think they're as annoying as you do. The broad middle just also thinks you're as annoying as they are.

[Sirius Blackstone]

If I could go back in time, I would blow Norman Borlaug and swallow the load. That's fucking sustainability, people.

This is beautiful.

OP, it is widely accepted in the environmentalist movement that developed countries are the heaviest polluters and that moves towards global sustainability shouldn't unfairly limit growth and health improvements in the developing world. It's disingenuous to characterize the movement as "humans are bad, technology is bad, shrink our population" and it sounds like you got that from a Michael Crichton novel. Even the Greenpeace text you linked is more nuanced - it says they want labeling and further study.

In general, you seem to characterize entire movements based on parts of them that are objectionable to you and then have discussions based on your flawed definition of the movement. This isn't a very nuanced way of thinking, but hopefully Penn or NYU will help you gain some intellectual maturity.

Also, although your original question has been answered pretty thoroughly at this point, I'll just reiterate not to worry about political leanings of the student body at either of these schools (I'd lean Penn because of the $$). You will find people that agree with you and people that don't, and you will have friends from both categories.

[bjsesq]

Still can't believe so many people say retards on these forums.

Why? Because it's offensive? People tell stories about rubbing shit on walls and other horrific things they've done here, dude. Calling a retard a retard doesn't really stoke the fire as much as it does off the internet.

[hdunlop]

And yet people don't call stuff gay here much. I guess the clinically retarded are significantly less likely to post on top law schools dot com so there's no posters to be like "dude don't say that," but I'm old enough to remember this exact same defense being used all the time to defend calling stuff gay. I'm not particularly PC-oriented and it's not a big deal but it's surprising is all.

[CaptainJapan]

so should he go to Penn or NYU?

[Mack.Hambleton]

so should he go to Penn or NYU?

regent

[A. Nony Mouse]

And yet people don't call stuff gay here much. I guess the clinically retarded are significantly less likely to post on top law schools dot com so there's no posters to be like "dude don't say that," but I'm old enough to remember this exact same defense being used all the time to defend calling stuff gay. I'm not particularly PC-oriented and it's not a big deal but it's surprising is all.

Homophobic slurs are against the rules here, so people get banned for calling things gay and don't use it as a slur. Retard(ed) isn't on the bannable list, so people use it. I personally disagree with that and don't use it, but I can't unilaterally change the policy here (especially when some of the other mods are frequent users of the term). Basically there's consensus about homophobia but not about ableism.