Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-21-2009, 12:07 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Long Island
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMEGAMAN View Post
I have a question. At what point does a corporation become evil enough to strip the amazon rain forest.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the question, but I'll try to answer.

I don't think McDonald's is intentionally evil. I don't think they set out to do harm. I think that like all corporations, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to provide a return on investment, or profit. The way the world works now, McDonald's profit is unaffected by the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest caused by their purchasing of cheap South American beef.

It seems to me that we have pushed the planet to its very limits in terms of its ability to provide for its inhabitants. There are no more buffer zones, there is no more margin for error. Our actions have unintended consequences that used to be "no big deal" because the world was big enough to absorb them and shake them off.

I believe that the environmental impact of products should be factored into their pricing so that market forces assist necessary regulation in moving us towards a sustainable future. A carbon tax is one example of how this could work.

Edit: I'm actually unsure if McDonald's still purchases beef from ranches created from cleared rainforests. They may have stopped due to public pressure. But it's a good illustration of how corporatization and heavily marketing driven consumption have a negative impact on the world.

__________________
1987 W201 190D
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-21-2009, 01:16 AM
Emmerich's Avatar
M-100's in Dallas
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichC View Post
Do we have more of a right to eat than the sperm whales ???
Of course we do, thats why we are at the top of the food chain.
__________________
MB-less
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-21-2009, 01:36 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Long Island
Posts: 578
Some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you.
__________________
1987 W201 190D
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-21-2009, 05:43 AM
RichC's Avatar
Internal Error 404
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmerich View Post
Of course we do, thats why we are at the top of the food chain.
It does not matter if your at the top of the food chain if there are no other links below you.

The issue is not who or what is more dominate.

The issue is the possibly dwindeling suppy of food for humans and every other creature.
__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-21-2009, 10:03 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmerich View Post
Of course we do, thats why we are at the top of the food chain.
That's the standard thought of the people of the Phillipines- which is why the waters there are barren. Fishing was easy when you throw a grenade in the water- but then it kills everything. It's sickening to see nothing underwater there. We as humans do not have the "right" we have the "ability". We have to stop looking at the fish as resources that certain groups have the license to harvest and start looking at how to keep the stock numbers high and still allow many to fish and eat. The first step is to allow less commercial catch and more recreational catch that people eat. Fish that are caught and eaten by recreational methods create huge jobs numbers and have a positive economic ripple effect that commercial fishing cannot compare to. Commercial fisheries have the upper hand in the national fisheries management councils however and pretty much control council policies to the detriment of the fish and the rest of the human population. The biggest problem is international cheating on already unrealistic high catch quotas- there are almost no negative consequences to the countries or fishing companies that break agreements.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-21-2009, 10:12 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,423
BTW all food supply issues must be tied to human population issues as pointed out earlier. It is far better for the planet to go catch a local slightly endangered fish and eat it than to have some forest in SA cut down for beef production, then to have the beef chilled, trucked, shipped, trucked and finally delivered to a store or restaurant close to you.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-21-2009, 10:56 AM
OMEGAMAN's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonL View Post
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the question, but I'll try to answer.

I don't think McDonald's is intentionally evil. I don't think they set out to do harm. I think that like all corporations, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to provide a return on investment, or profit. The way the world works now, McDonald's profit is unaffected by the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest caused by their purchasing of cheap South American beef.

It seems to me that we have pushed the planet to its very limits in terms of its ability to provide for its inhabitants. There are no more buffer zones, there is no more margin for error. Our actions have unintended consequences that used to be "no big deal" because the world was big enough to absorb them and shake them off.

I believe that the environmental impact of products should be factored into their pricing so that market forces assist necessary regulation in moving us towards a sustainable future. A carbon tax is one example of how this could work.

Edit: I'm actually unsure if McDonald's still purchases beef from ranches created from cleared rainforests. They may have stopped due to public pressure. But it's a good illustration of how corporatization and heavily marketing driven consumption have a negative impact on the world.
Now we are where I wanted to be. It's hard to discuss an issue when it gets off topic with rants about corporate greed and the amazon rain forest.

How would you control the worlds population and or it's caloric intake? What should those figures be? What should we be eating?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-21-2009, 11:03 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTUpower View Post
BTW all food supply issues must be tied to human population issues as pointed out earlier. It is far better for the planet to go catch a local slightly endangered fish and eat it than to have some forest in SA cut down for beef production, then to have the beef chilled, trucked, shipped, trucked and finally delivered to a store or restaurant close to you.
This can be said of many commodities. Like electricity. If everyone had solar panels on their roofs, we wouldn't need huge power plants and the losses in transmission that occur with those.
Never going to happen. And you'll never stop commercial fishermen either.
__________________
1984 300TD
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-21-2009, 11:22 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by tankdriver View Post
This can be said of many commodities. Like electricity. If everyone had solar panels on their roofs, we wouldn't need huge power plants and the losses in transmission that occur with those.
Never going to happen. And you'll never stop commercial fishermen either.
Sure it will- just as solar panels are going up on roofs as we speak. Worldwide it'll be a long time coming, but in the USA the wheels are turning slowly in the direction of less commercial fishing.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-21-2009, 11:29 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Long Island
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by tankdriver View Post
Never going to happen. And you'll never stop commercial fishermen either.
Yes it will. A little at a time, maybe VERY little at a time. But it will only happen if people keep up the pressure.

You cannot stop change. Even in the face of enormous obstacles. Some extreme examples: The fall of the Soviet Union. The unfolding events in Iran. These things start with murmurs and whispers, then a few become more vocal, then a critical mass is reached. The environmental murmurs and whispers began with Rachel Carlson or before. IMO we are an the cusp of reaching critical mass on a lot of issues that result from overpopulation. Unfortunately, we'll deal with the effects of overpopulation and not the root cause. Even more unfortunate is that if our efforts are ineffective, the root cause will take care of itself in an ugly and disruptive manner.
__________________
1987 W201 190D
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-21-2009, 05:50 PM
Palangi's Avatar
L' Résistance
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Republique de Banana
Posts: 3,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTUpower View Post
That's the standard thought of the people of the Phillipines- which is why the waters there are barren. Fishing was easy when you throw a grenade in the water- but then it kills everything. It's sickening to see nothing underwater there. We as humans do not have the "right" we have the "ability". We have to stop looking at the fish as resources that certain groups have the license to harvest and start looking at how to keep the stock numbers high and still allow many to fish and eat. The first step is to allow less commercial catch and more recreational catch that people eat. Fish that are caught and eaten by recreational methods create huge jobs numbers and have a positive economic ripple effect that commercial fishing cannot compare to. Commercial fisheries have the upper hand in the national fisheries management councils however and pretty much control council policies to the detriment of the fish and the rest of the human population. The biggest problem is international cheating on already unrealistic high catch quotas- there are almost no negative consequences to the countries or fishing companies that break agreements.

There was a Phillipino outfit doing commercial fishing on Christmas Island for a while. They were using cyanide.

Kiribati government eventually deported them, but they did considerable damage while they were there.
__________________
Palangi

2004 C240 Wagon 203.261 Baby Benz
2008 ML320 CDI Highway Cruiser
2006 Toyota Prius, Saving the Planet @ 48 mpg
2000 F-150, Destroying the Planet @ 20 mpg



TRUMP .......... WHITEHOUSE
HILLARY .........JAILHOUSE
BERNIE .......... NUTHOUSE
0BAMA .......... OUTHOUSE
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-21-2009, 09:27 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wakefield, RI
Posts: 2,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonL View Post
Yes, population control is the ultimate answer. It is silly, however, to just throw up our hands and say that until we get the population under control nothing can be done. I eat some fish, eggs, and a bit of cheese. No meat, no fowl. A largely vegetarian diet can be truly delicious. I think you'd eat a vegetarian diet within one day if meat was unavailable to you. Far short of holding a gun to your head. Think of all the people on this earth who would be grateful for half a handful of rice and a drink of clean water every day. IMO, the western world, driven by it's corporations quest for profit, have embraced consumption all out of proportion to what is required for it's (oversized) population. Need a fast lunch? Let's get a 1000 calorie "big meal" or whatever based on cheap south american beef that caused the deforestation of the Amazon rain forest. How about a nice salad with some beans and a hard boiled egg instead? Or just a slice of pizza. The McDonald's etc. of the world are pushing this crappy beef down everyone's throat. Totally unnecessary.
I don't eat at McDonalds, and rarely, maybe two or three times a year at ANY fast food joint. I don't think of myself as a huge "meat" eater but I do have a portion animal with lunch and dinner. As far as "eating vegetarian within one day" well, on that day I'd go get a deer, or a turkey, both are all over the place where I live. Rabbits too. I've taken them, and eat all of them. I don't give tinkers damn about "all the people" on this Earth. The disconnect in your thinking is that if I eat a plate of beans then some poor bastard in Zimbabwe will have more to eat. It ain't so. Never has been. Never will be. I actually like salad and beans too, just also include animal protein as its part of a balanced diet. Don't like the corporations? Don't support them. I don't. RT
__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-22-2009, 12:48 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Long Island
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwthomas1 View Post
I don't eat at McDonalds, and rarely, maybe two or three times a year at ANY fast food joint. I don't think of myself as a huge "meat" eater but I do have a portion animal with lunch and dinner. As far as "eating vegetarian within one day" well, on that day I'd go get a deer, or a turkey, both are all over the place where I live. Rabbits too. I've taken them, and eat all of them. I don't give tinkers damn about "all the people" on this Earth. The disconnect in your thinking is that if I eat a plate of beans then some poor bastard in Zimbabwe will have more to eat. It ain't so. Never has been. Never will be. I actually like salad and beans too, just also include animal protein as its part of a balanced diet. Don't like the corporations? Don't support them. I don't. RT
My thinking isn't that if I eat a plate of beans someone else will have more to eat. My thinking is that large scale animal farming is a huge environmental problem that affects everyone. If I eat a plate of beans, I have done something to make the world better for me and my children, and also for you although I don't really give a tinker's damn about that. (Just kidding.)

My point about eating vegetarian within a day, is that the other poster said something about having to put a gun to his head to make him give up meat. My comment was intended to mean that faced with a choice between not eating at all or eating vegetarian, he'd make the vegetarian choice within one day.

I've got nothing against eating meat or fish or anything else. I've got a problem with the overfishing that threatens to topple the food chain upon which much of life depends, and I've got a problem with the factory farming of animals that is inhumane, unhealthy for the animals, unhealthy for the consumer, unhealthy for the farmer and their local community, and unhealthy for the planet.

Good that you don't give a tinker's damn about all the people on the earth. Perhaps if everyone felt that way we'd be... you tell me. Where would we be?
__________________
1987 W201 190D
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-22-2009, 12:53 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Long Island
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMEGAMAN View Post
Now we are where I wanted to be. It's hard to discuss an issue when it gets off topic with rants about corporate greed and the amazon rain forest.

How would you control the worlds population and or it's caloric intake? What should those figures be? What should we be eating?
I don't have good answers. I would start with education and an attempt to re-instill some of the traditional values that could help. Values like thrift, civility, courtesy, compassion, etc. I'd try to remove the glorification of excess.

I'm not proposing that we embark on some wholesale social engineering program, though it ultimately might come to that. Look at the drastic steps China has taken to control it's population.
__________________
1987 W201 190D
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-22-2009, 01:30 AM
RichC's Avatar
Internal Error 404
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 963
Education comes up as an answer to many many problems.

Lack of education seems to be at the core of many human difficulties.

__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page