Close to 2k environmental activists killed over last decade
Yes, but what about the tens of thousands of "green transition" environmental policy advisors who whitewashed capitalism and business as usual and got rich?
There's some balance!
Probably zero. This is a crazy straw man to change the topic.
Never is the answer. And I think you know it.
The UK, home to Novalpina, the company behind NSO, is a member of the UN Security group. You mean them?
How are you going to hold all the permanent members of the UN Security Council responsible for this? They all have companies and organizations operating in this space.
There’s only 5 permanent members with voting rights: China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
You start there. You sign effectually a cyber arms treaty which makes it illegal to export offensive cyber weapons for profit. If these members can sign nuclear arms treaties (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)), I don’t see how offensive cyber weapons could be any more complicated.
Then go after the nonmembers that are profiting wildly off the offensive cyber weapons.
What makes you think they will do that? Especially considering that Russia's source of soft power in the developing world is their willingness to sell offensive weapons without asking ESG questions.
I don’t know. Why would they sign a nuclear arms treaty?
Those things are not similar.
A nuclear arms reduction treaty ensures that all parties keep their own relative power (that is not dictated by the nukes) without going into a boundlessly expensive arms-race that would bankrupt all of them.
A prohibition on cyberweapons exports doesn't have any similar impact. It wouldn't even make defense cheaper. It's something that may be useful for civilians, but how often do civilian concerns enter those high-level treaties?
(Anyway, I'm not even sure it gains us anything. The absence of somebody exploiting them does not make the vulnerabilities go away. What would really help is if some moderately advanced country decided to take their head outside of their ass and do something to protect themselves. But I don't expect to actually see that happening, everybody only wants to work on the offensive.)
I looked at the report - reading between the lines (e.g. deaths by country), this looks to be at least 90% south/central american cartel related. This isn't the saudis sending agent 47 after people - it's more like people fighting over land for coca cultivation.
I'm curious what statistics there are relating to deaths/injuries/imprisonment for protesting other causes as well.
Are the saudis in the room with you right now? Are the saudis the only country that uses offensive cyber weapons to kill civilians, activists and journalists?
Recently Georgia police killed an environmental activist protesting the construction of Cop City: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/us/cop-city-activist-killed-d...
Then the government indicted 61 activists on RICO charges: https://apnews.com/article/atlanta-cop-city-protests-rico-ch...
This is currently ongoing.
Charged yes, literally executed on the street without trial, no.
There is absolutely no universe where someone who surrenders to the cops should be shot 50 times. I don't care if they're Jeffrey Dahmer, I don't care if they just moments before murdered someone in cold blood.
Forget ethics or morals, it's a moral hazard. If the cops are just going to shoot you dead you have no incentive to stop and have every right to defend yourself against them doing so. The only way to make surrendering to the cops a feasible action is if they always stand down the instant you do.
If cops are in a mini-warzone with vehicles on fire and bricks and molotovs being thrown, bad outcomes are likely going to happen. (50 shots does seem extreme, but when the decision to use lethal force has been made, does the number of shots really matter?)
If you're a genuinely peaceful protestor, you need to seriously consider leaving the protest area before trouble escalates to the point where police are forced to make impossible life-or-death decisions within seconds amidst chaos.
It does kind of paint a disturbing picture of the mindset of the shooters when so many shots are fired at a single target sitting a few feet in front of you.
If they were military, would this not be considered a huge breach of protocol and training and liable for discipline? Wasting that much time and ammo on a target that was neutralized with a few shots? That really reflects poorly on your ability to assess and react to this kind of situation.
Definitely a sign that better training is needed. But the public reaction to a suggestion of 'more riot/combat training for cops' isn't likely to be positive.
Well, the cops are getting all the combat and riot training that they want. The public reaction doesn't seem to impact this. I'd suggest that these cops come a work culture of impunity, and that's why they fired so many shots.
Just say outright that you'd prefer to live in a police state, instead of using the dogwhistles for it.
Nearly all violence at protests is started by cops.
Maybe when they stop behaving like terrorists, we can talk about what protestors should be doing...
I'm guessing you're one of those people who don't consider destruction of property as a violent act?
You see 'protestors' smashing and burning things, but that's 'not real violence'. It only becomes violent when the police try to stop it, right?
Look at the video and tell me what property was destroyed, before the violence started.
The damage is only criminal when the wrong side causes it.
I agree that violent action and criminal damage are unacceptable.
Some of the people perpetrating these actions say that they do so because our collective treatment of the environment is arguably all three: violent, criminally damaging, and as problematic as literal arson.
Society is easily able to identify these harms when perpetrated against man-made structures. Much of society is desensitized or uninterested in acknowledging the same level of harm against the environment itself that is continuous and ongoing.
I think these forms of protest are deeply misguided and counterproductive, and I do not condone them. They also highlight the difference in attitudes towards various forms of ongoing harm.
You forgot to mention that the activist was killed because he was shooting a cop.
The autopsy found there wasn't gunpowder on their hands and protesters who were there claim that isn't what happened. Police lie all the time.
That's not what I read here: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/autopsy-cop-city-protester-...
> Gunpowder residue is not seen on the hands. A GSR kit is performed," the report reads in part.
> That GSR kit was sent off to the GBI Crime Lab for analysis. The findings were released Tuesday. This report "revealed the presence of particles characteristic of gunshot primer residue."
The autopsy did not find visible residue. That is quite different from your conclusion "the autopsy found there wasn't gunpowder on their hands".
If you're shot 57 times you will end up covered in gunpowder. If you're shot in the hands, like the victim, you'll have gunpowder on your hands. If a bunch of cops panic fire into you and then handle your lifeless corpse the gunpowder from their hands will end up on you.
I urge you to consider the owner of this media outlet and what political ties they likely have. Propaganda works best when veiled in a guise of neutrality.
If you don't like or believe reading the quotes from the reports on a right-biased media source, perhaps you'll like or believe reading them more on a left-biased media source (the details in which I find even more compelling that the protester very likely discharged their firearm):
> The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) is the only major daily newspaper in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia, United States. It is the flagship publication of Cox Enterprises.
Cox Enterprises is ringing extremely loud warning bells. This is the same Cox that is time and again accused of being an internet and TV monopoly and taking advantage of their customers with exploitative, borderline illegal tactics. I don't trust them one bit. I'm willing to bet in a place like Atlanta, with the history it has, there's still a good ol' boys club with deep roots, operating as the Chamber of Commerce or another faceless, buried, quasi-bureaucratic market-capture and -manipulation mechanism. It's such a mundane point to make because of how ubiquitous this pattern is, but bears repeating in this context. It always seems paranoid to point out this possibility until it's proven true. You can see a recent expression of this tendency in the raid on that elderly reporter in Kansas, the one that stressed her out so much she died.
Again, critical reading is imperative here. Especially considering how news media outlets today frequently rely on "access journalism" -- ie, favorable coverage and language in exchange for voluntary participation by police in accessing details about new stories -- we should expect that large outlets (especially ones with captive audiences such as "the only major daily newspaper in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia"; looks like they monopolized Atlanta's newspaper market, too) play games with rhetoric to maintain legitimacy while peppering in propaganda, in the name of "both sides" and "neutrality", in order to maintain access.
You shouldn't trust that 'allsides' website any more than you should trust anyone else. I certainly don't. You should also note: "As of September 2023, AllSides has low or initial confidence in our Lean left rating for Atlanta Journal-Constitution." This does not support your assertion that this media source is "left-biased". In fact upon further review that website relies exclusively on community reviews to label these websites. It has the same issues that any reporting mechanism of this form has, which makes it even less trustworthy.
ACJ is playing to their crowd just like the rest of them to maintain legitimacy and keep the money flowing. This isn't to say that everything in the news is fake, just that everything in the news is shaped by material forces working behind the scenes which helps to form the narratives that end up in the columns and webpages. Sometimes there's outright lies, sometimes lies by omission. It's as much about what is said as what isn't said. Sometimes even emphasis and rhetoric is enough to shift the narrative enough that certain perspectives are completely memory-holed.
> critical reading is imperative
If you don't trust that the multiple media outlets have managed to copy and paste quotes correctly, then go to the original source reports and draw your conclusions.
I'm challenging the lack of journalistic integrity in actually investigating the claims contained within those quotes -- not whether the journalists are capable of stenography, but whether they are capable of journalism.
What investigation do you want them to do on the gunshot residue point? Dig up the body, swab the hands, and run their own GSR test?
I get that it's inconvenient for one side in the standoff for gunshot residue to be found on their hands. I don't have any reasonable double that there was.
Asking literally anyone except police is a good start. Police are acting as privileged gatekeepers of information and saying "just trust me bro". I expect HN community members to carry themselves to a higher standard here and really dig in. I'm sorry to say it but I'm really starting to doubt your sincerity.
Plenty of experts on primer residue and other forensics topics out there. "Is it possible that this amount of residue is due to the bullets shot at and into Tortuguita and not due to shots fired from a weapon held by him? Do you find it credible that wounds such as those through the palms of Tortuguita coincide with the narrative that he was wielding a gun at the time of his death?" Easy peasy, and I didn't even go to school for journalism. I'm sure there's other means of finding credible information. They could also quote those other activists who were witness to the death and put those quotes on equal footing with those from the police, but they don't.
> I don't have any reasonable double [sic] that there was.
Assuming you meant "doubt": then you're playing a one-sided game while scolding others for what you perceive is one-sidedness. To me it is hypocritical to do so.
Like all those unarmed 7-12 year olds that "looked like they had something in their hands", or the dozens of people killed or arrested which then had guns planted of them?
Cops get too trigger happy all the time, but in this case the activist had a gun that forensics matched to a bullet in a state trooper’s stomach. From the GBI’s press releases :
> Today, the GBI received confirmation from a firearms transaction record that in September 2020, Manuel Esteban Paez Teran legally purchased the firearm that was used in the shooting of a GSP trooper.
> The handgun is described as a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm. Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun
Ballistic analysis is useless. Video proof or they are lying. Deep South America is more of a police state than people realize.
It sounds so believable that a protestor bought and owned an M&P Shield, a gun extremely popular with police, and brought it to a protest. It's also super believable that while surrounded by armed police that this person decided to shoot a single round at an officer from a sitting position.
A 7+1 rounds pistol with a safety switch is extremely popular with police? I'd like to see some source for that.
The GSP service firearm is a Glock, FWIW.
Forensic bullet analysis is phrenology for bullets:
It's not just about matching imprints on the bullet to the barrel. They likely also checked the ammo against what was in the magazine, and I doubt Teran had the same ammo as the police. It might be the same caliber (9mm luger) but there are many different brands of ammunition and bullet types. Atlanta police use Winchester PDX1 147 grain. Most people use lighter hollow points that cost less. Also Atlanta police use Gen 4 Glocks, which have polygonal rifling. Bullets fired from polygonal rifling have very different imprints than those fired from traditional rifling with lands and grooves.
Even if he owned a gun...
Even if he had it with him...
Even if he had just shot a cop with it...
It does not justify murdering him for it, especially since from what I've seen, when he was shot he had surrendered and was no threat to anyone.
We really need to stop letting cops control the narrative around their extrajudicial killings by putting blame on the victim. It doesn't matter if the victim is a pure choirboy or the worst, most hard-bitten gang member you can find: lethal force should be the absolute last resort when attempting to subdue someone.
Is this alleged by a cop? Cops can lie under oath without consequences, unlike a regular civilian.
Here’s the summary of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s findings: https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-04-14/gbi-invest...
The protestor had a gun on him. The model and serial number matched that of a gun he purchased in 2020. The round recovered from the state trooper’s abdomen matched that gun.
Okay? Georgia bureau of investigation isn’t exactly a neutral third party unfortunately, also, again, they can lie and omit without consequences. I’m pointing out that due to the existing corruption baked into the justice system and police force, it’s extremely difficult to buy anything said no matter how many fancy labels is put into it.
So what do you think happened? Did the Atlanta police place the gun at the scene and hope that the GBI would lie about the forensics results? Did they lie about the purchase records too? Did they shoot one of their own to justify murder? If they wanted to kill an activist, they could just say he was pointing a gun at them. No need to almost kill a state trooper to cover it up.
One way this all makes sense is if someone else borrowed his gun and shot the trooper.
The cops traced it back to Teran and went into the protest encounter expecting to be dealing with a cop killer.
Kid had no idea what was coming; APD are thugs an environment that self-selects for them. They took no chances and wasted him.
Covering up a summary execution is way easier than conspiracy to commit it.
The trooper was shot immediately prior to the return fire which killed the protester. This timeline is not coherent with the facts.
My bad. I hadn't read up on this since it first happened.
The family claims friendly fire. I'd believe it. Accidental discharge would explain why no GSR was found on his hands.
GSR was found on his hands.
Some. From the accounts I'm now looking at, the state is being dodgy with their wording of it. Being shot 57 times will dust everything with GSR.
I never posited any alternatives, except to say that you cannot trust the testimony of obviously corrupt institutions. There are literally infinite amount of untruths they could’ve lied about and an infinite number of nuances left out in testimony. You cannot rely on anything except that someone is dead.
And someone else was shot. I don’t think that fact is in dispute?
You’re missing my point, which is that you cannot rely on the testimony of corrupt individuals who can lie under oath, in the court of law, without consequence. This means you only have a few facts, and any other presented facts by corrupt institutions are suspect by default.
From other answers in this thread you'd think that the police just shot and killed an innocent protester... how can anyone think that if there's an injured trooper?
Idiot cops opening fire on mass and hitting another cop in the crossfire as has happened many times before.
> The round recovered from the state trooper’s abdomen matched that gun.
Firearms forensics is, like most criminal forensics, junk science: even when the basic scientific reality is aligned any particular technique, it's heavily laundered through interpretation and not subject to rigorous statistical analysis.
(In particular, bullet analysis is complete nonsense. Prior to 2005 the standard technique was lead-composition analysis, which (1) assumed that all of the suspect's bullets were the same, and (2) assumed that similarly-manufactured bullets would have similar compositions. Neither is true, which is why the Federal government no longer uses it as evidence. It's unclear whether the same is true for Georgia and the GBI.)
Edit: A more specific reference for ballistic analysis, which appears to be what the GBI used here.
Yes, and according the autopsy:
"Both Manuel's left and right hands show exit wounds in both palms. The autopsy further reveals that Manuel was most probably in a seated position, cross-legged when killed,"
Also, he was shot a dozen times, and apparently had raised both his arms.
Neat trick getting shot through both palms while holding a gun (without damaging the gun), kind of like bashing your own head in from the back of a squad car, or hanging yourself from a 9 ft jail cell ceiling without a rope or platform.
Where are you quoting this from? Can you provide a link?
You can easily Google this yourself. The first hit is:
Well normally when you quote something, you source what is quoted. It's not up to the reader to track down sources.
Thanks for the link.
>Neat trick getting shot through both palms while holding a gun
If you get shot 57 times, including through your head, you're probably going to drop what you're holding at some point during the experience.
He was so committed to nonviolence that he purchased a handgun and somehow one of the bullets from that gun ended up in a state trooper’s abdomen.
From the Georgia Bureau of Investigation :
> Today, the GBI received confirmation from a firearms transaction record that in September 2020, Manuel Esteban Paez Teran legally purchased the firearm that was used in the shooting of a GSP trooper.
> The handgun is described as a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm. Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun.
This was classic lawyering - pay for your own autopsy to get the story you want. We know three thing, the guy who got shot:
1: Purchased a S&W 9mm pistol
2: That pistol was on his possession at the protest
3: A police office was shot with that pistol
The guy who got shot was then shot by the police ~50 times, so not surprising he was shot in the hand. That's not evidence of one's hands being up in the air.
Asking earnestly: what makes this and not the police's own reports "classic lawering"? A value-neutral outlook would require us to consider both equally.
(And note: we don't actually know anything besides (1). (2) is a claim by the police, and (3) is the product of a pseudoscientific ballistics analysis by the same. Accepting them as fact goes well beyond the neutral viewpoint.)
I mean, they have a photo of the gun, on the ground at the crime scene.
We have a police photo of the gun &c &c.
They have the purchase records for the gun connecting it to the shooter, so how would the gun be there if the guy didn't bring it?
Purchase records are not evidence that someone carried a thing to a place. I can think of any number of plausible scenarios, including that the police moved it, someone else moved it, the photo is taken out of context, etc. And of course: the victim might have brought it themselves.
I don't know what happened and I fully admit that, but let's take the cop section out of it, so none of this "Cops lie all the time" business.
I have a hard time believing the first party shot their own in order to press charges on the second party. It doesn't pass the Occam's razor test, TBH
1) A person was shot by someone at the scene 2) A different person who was in conflict with the first person had a gun with the same ballistic profile (caliber etc.) 3) There are two separate parties with an interest in the outcome who witnessed the crime 4) The first party with an interest, was actively aggrivating people at the scene, causing hightened tensions 5) The second party was in direct conflict with the first
EDIT: I suck at formatting
It doesn't have to pass Occam's razor. It has to pass (or would have had to, had they not killed him) the standard of reasonable doubt.
Edit: Sorry, this puts words in your mouth. I mean to say that I don’t think Occam’s Razor is a sufficient level of belief in these kinds of situations.
The article interchanges killed with murdered. It'd be nice if they talked about the circumstances a little more, though I doubt many of the killings were justified or legal.
Likely, another case that end up only netting maybe one or two people with charges after the process is finalized.
The remaining will have had their lives turned upside down by the process, and despite being innocent, will have suffered immense damage financially by the state.
Calling violent domestic terrorists engaged in attacks on police, property destruction, arson and other obviously criminal acts mere "environmental activists" is very disingenuous. It's like saying "a mathematician dies in prison after being jailed for using postal services". Technically it's not exactly a lie, but it omits so much relevant context that it is, for all practical purposes, a lie. And also a grave disservice to actual non-violent activists for preserving the environment who probably don't want to be identified with domestic terrorists under the same umbrella term.
You mean the environmental activist who shot a police officer?
The activist that police claim shot an officer. The state did a test to determine if there was gunpowder residue on his hands, but has so far declined to release the result.
The results were released months ago, gunpowder residue was found on his hands.
Teran was shot in their hands. If they actually fired a weapon there'd be a lot more than five particles to find, and in a lot more places.
Maybe, but the commenter above claimed that the results weren’t released, which is false.
Autopsy: Gunshot residue ‘not seen’ on activist killed at police training center
"According to the autopsy sent to ABC News, Teran did not have gunpowder residue on their hands. Officials claimed Teran fired the first shot at a state trooper."
While true, how it was explained to me was that the autopsy did a visual inspection, while the GBI test, which was done afterwards, was a more thorough chemical one. However, I don’t have a source on this one.
You're not going to see gunpowder residue without firing quite a few shots. The test is far more conclusion than a visual inspection.
Well, he was shot over a dozen times at close range (probably while sitting with hands up), and both palms had exit wounds.
I’m not sure how well visual inspection would work with all the blood and other carnage.
However, I’m also not sure if trace gunshot residue will show up on current forensics tests if multiple people empty their clips into you from a few feet away.
There’s also the question of why they shot him over a dozen times while he was unarmed.
Fair enough, but that's still one hell of a detail to leave out. It completely changes the nature of the case if that person did in fact shoot a police officer, and so those allegations bear mentioning even if they aren't proven yet.
The guy had a gun on him. The serial number matched that of a gun he legally purchased in 2020. The bullet in the officer matched that gun. Do you think the cops shot him, then shot one of their own to make it look like self-defense? If they wanted to get away with murder they could simply claim the guy pointed the gun at them.
When people say "more training" they're referring to De-escalation and crisis management training. Not a paramilitary training facility for teach cops tactical assault, and breach and raid techniques.
Although that's also part of the job. And something that's difficult to practice in a classroom.
Cops have created a climate and situations where they benefit from that style of training. Conducting no-knock raids and other paramilitary operations for nonviolent crimes is an unnecessary escalation.
Warrior training and being trained that everyone is an adversary with execution being the go to option isn't normal and shouldn't be ingrained in folks whose day-to-day is largely nonviolent encounters.
and yet day-to-day, they risk running into a guy with a gun. Grow up.
Uvalde, TX disagrees.
meaning, what? Some cops and chiefs betray their oath to put other people's safety above their own?
would you like some examples where they didn't?
There's more examples where they did at this point.
> Grow up.
It's time we stop living in or creating a fantasy world where every encounter with the public is an opportunity for a gun battle. Perhaps if they were trained in deescalation and not told to fear every person they encounter as potential threat then they wouldn't be perpetually afraid for their lives while performing routine interactions with the public?
We don't need to be investing heavily in training cops for an exception encounter, we need to be providing them the training and tools necessary for their day to day duties. As a follow on, the public wouldn't be afraid for their own safety when having to interact with police.
> a fantasy world
that's the world you're living in, where these selfless, fearless (and also defenseless) people go out to sacrifice themselves every day.
> training cops for an exception encounter,
yeah, except the "exception" means you don't come home to your family that day.
> yeah, except the "exception" means you don't come home to your family that day.
So I guess we should be giving every citizen that same paramilitary training because they have a higher chance of being killed by a cop than a cop does by them.
Activists have said for years (decades even) that more training does not work. There is very little evidence that training in the way that some politicians have called for affects policing at all. Cop City training in particular is not even that, its not for bias training or anything, it’s very much more akin to military training.
Activists goals have always been for redirecting some police funding to education, community outreach, different divisions for different problems, etc. There are some that push for abolition but the overall goal of those who actually have been doing it for years has been to address the underlying problems and not to throw more money at an armed force with immunity.
Which is all completely untrue. Police in America are very untrained compared to other countries. The standards to be a cop are too low.
This is just a bunch of middle class "defund" people with little else going on.
.. and raising the "standards" -- that's going to attract more applicants? Explain how that would work.
Is it working? San Francisco (and other cities) has been running such "experiment" and clearly it's becoming a frightening drug hot spot (among other problems).
I think American cops are trigger happy, but don’t throw around assertions about “underlying problems” without evidence. Lots of places that don’t have a fraction of the “education,” etc., of the Atlanta metro area, and also have cops that are trigger happy as fuck, don’t have the same level of disruption in the social order. Watch a Bollywood cop movie sometime—some of the scenes of “good cops” killing “bad guys” without due process would make a Republican uneasy. Nonetheless, Atlanta has a homicide rate 5-10 times higher than Delhi, India. Hell, the homicide rate in some parts of America are higher than the death rates of American soldiers during the Iraq war: https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/parts-of-chicago-more-da...
American social disorder is a unique phenomenon that cannot be waved away as being caused by poverty, lack of education, etc. And frankly it’s kind of offensive to make that comparison. Poor, uneducated people around the world manage to maintain more orderly communities than Americans who are vastly more privileged and affluent in comparison.
> Nonetheless, Atlanta has a homicide rate 5-10 times higher than Delhi ....
Estimated number of civilian firearms per 100 people:
- U.S.: 120.5
- India: 5.3
> Guns are a fact
So are typhoid and cholera — and civilized societies enforce reasonable laws to prevent them from disrupting life.
BTW, in case you're wondering: I'm a Texan who has owned multiple firearms for pretty much my entire adult life — I was taught to shoot at about age eight by my dad, with more-advanced instruction a decade or so later, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
> unlike typhoid, there is absolutely zero chance that private gun ownership in the US is ever going to be abolished
"Unlike typhoid"? We've yet to abolish typhoid; the U.S. gets about 200-300 cases per year, mostly from travelers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8933273/
And both typhoid and cholera have a nasty way of reappearing when natural disasters occur and sanitation takes a hit.
But hey, since we can't ever achieve 100% success for all time, then we should just throw up our hands and learn to live with 100% failure, right? Yeah, that's the ticket ....
In Atlanta, about 35-40% of households own a firearm: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/3/189. In Idaho it’s 60% https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-stat....
Despite having more guns, Idaho has a homicide rate of 2.2 per 100,000, which is only a little higher than Belgium, and about the same as Canada, and a little lower than India.
By contrast, Puerto Rico had fewer guns than India, but a homicide rate of 19 per 100,000, more than six times higher than India. Disarmed Puerto Rico has a homicide rate eight times higher than heavily armed Idaho.
Clinging to the belief that it’s guns rather than social factors is just willful denial.
Population density per square mile:
- Idaho: 22.3 (44th out of 50 states) 
- Puerto Rico: 952 
- India: 1,244 
Homicide rate doesn’t actually have much to do with population density. Boise has a population density of 2,800 per square mile and similar homicide rate to the state as a whole. Urban Boise is actually slightly denser than urban San Juan, Puerto Rico, while being heavily armed and far safer. Boise is also similarly dense to Atlanta while being much safer.
> Clinging to the belief that it’s guns rather than social factors is just willful denial.
That's a false dichotomy — sure, social factors play an important role, but it's a multi-variate phenomenon, and you seem to want to deny that gun-ownership rates have anything to do with it.
You haven’t presented any evidence that guns are a major factor after adjusting for social factors. The US also has the highest rates of fatherless households in the world, while India has one of the lowest. Maybe that’s the reason for the difference in homicide rates.
We've spoken? You have the advantage of me — unlike you, I use my real name online.
But you're very-much mistaken about what I think: As near as I can tell, the causes of crime are markedly more complicated than the caricature you just attributed to me.
Your commentary here puts you in line with DSA-types. Do you consider yourself a socialist? Because you definitely act like it.
You sound like Gul Madred to Jean-Luc Picard: "There are five lights."
No, I'm not a socialist. Some socialist ideas are unrealistic in view of human nature. That doesn't mean all their ideas are bad.
“The” driving factor? Are we in agreement that it’s a factor?
Once adjusted for demographics I meant - d'oh.
The US is kind of an outlier in gun ownership. What should we take away from this?
Estimated number of civilian firearms per 100 people and gun deaths per 100000:
- El Salvador: 5.8, 78.52
- Brazil: 8.6, 23.93
- Colombia: 10.10, 20.38
- U.S.: 120.5, 12.21
- Mexico: 15, 11.55
If anything it seems like proximity to cartels is the most likely predictor of gun homicide rates
Meanwhile Switzerland has 27.6 guns per 100 civilians and 2.64 gun homicides per 100,000. So not sure what to conclude about gun ownership and homicides. Note that gun deaths not equal to gun homicides since deaths includes suicide and the CDC reports these items combined. If you wanted to discuss gun suicides that's fine but note this was about homicide.
> Meanwhile Switzerland has 27.6 guns per 100 civilians and 2.64 gun homicides per 100,000. So not sure what to conclude about gun ownership and homicides.
Another data point: Switzerland has strict gun laws that mostly ban the kind of military-grade firearms we see used in mass murders in the U.S. (and yes, some Latin American countries), and smaller guns require permits. 
More: "Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings ... Unlike the US, Switzerland has mandatory military service for men. The government gives all men between the ages of 18 and 34 deemed 'fit for service' a pistol or a rifle and training on how to use them. After they've finished their service, the men can typically buy and keep their service weapons, but they have to get a permit for them." 
 https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-s... (scan down for a useful chart)
> Switzerland has strict gun laws that mostly ban the kind of military-grade firearms we see used in mass murders in the U.S.
This is completely, verifiably false. It even contradicts the rest of your comment, where you quote:
> After they've finished their service, the men can typically buy and keep their service weapons
The “service weapon” here means literally the one that they used in military, which, as I presume, is “military grade”.
You must have overlooked the word "mostly" in my comment.
The first link in my post is to an official Swiss government site. If you want to quibble about what constitutes a "military-grade" firearm, that's certainly your privilege.
Yes, you can follow that link and find that you are completely wrong. Please name one weapon that is “military grade”, commonly available in US, but banned in Switzerland. You can’t, because you’re wrong.
From the Swiss government Web page I linked: Banned weapons include "semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine" — as just one example, recall that the Las Vegas shooter used "a large quantity of ammunition in special high-capacity magazines holding up to 100 cartridges each."
No, because this doesn’t ban anything that’s in common use in US. The 30 rounds magazines in common use in US do not count as “large magazines” for the purposes of that Swiss law, because these are normal capacity magazines. As I said, you are completely wrong about this.
That's it, keep moving the goalposts ....
BTW, did you also overlook the part about Switzerland requiring military training and service for (essentially) all able-bodied men in a certain age range? Whereas in the U.S., pretty much any untrained bozo who never served can buy high-powered weaponry and strut around cosplaying in camo and body armor, ostentatiously toting the weaponry and shouting belligerent slogans. (It's been my untutored conjecture that most such folks are trying to compensate for deep-seated fears that they don't really measure up in the masculinity department, although there also seems to be a certain percentage of sociopaths in the mix as well.)
No, it is you who keep moving the goalposts. The original claim was:
> Switzerland has strict gun laws that mostly ban the kind of military-grade firearms we see used in mass murders in the U.S.
And this is clearly false: you have not shown a single “military grade firearm” that we see used in mass murders in the US, but which is banned in Switzerland. All mass murders in US that I know of have used normal capacity magazines, and these are not banned in Switzerland. Your best argument here is that there might have been some mass murder in the US that used some weapon banned in Switzerland, but this is very far cry from your original goalpost, which is that Switzerland mostly bans guns used in mass murders in US: it overwhelmingly does not.
> BTW, did you also overlook the part about Switzerland requiring military training and service for (essentially) all able-bodied men in a certain age range?
Not sure what it has to do with the discussion, which was about clearly and explicitly false claim you made and apparently continue to hold on to, despite utter lack of evidence. Military service is not a prerequisite for gun ownership in Switzerland in general (it is for some guns, though).
> although there also seems to be a certain percentage of sociopaths in the mix as well
If we are playing armchair psychologist here, well, I could say something here about social orientation of people knowingly spreading verifiable falsehoods on the internet to further their ideology and agenda.
"Utter lack of evidence"? You sound like Texas's far-right Senate Republicans who this past weekend acquitted state AG Dan Paxton in his impeachment trial for bribery and other offenses, on grounds of a supposed lack of evidence — even though Paxton's whistleblowers and other accusers were (AFAIK) all Republicans and the impeachment had been voted by an overwhelming majority in the GOP-dominated Texas House, with a solid majority of House Republicans voting in favor of impeachment.
"Utter lack of evidence"? As the hoary old chestnut goes: Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
Yes, you have not given a single example of “the kind of military-grade firearms we see used in mass murders in the U.S” that’s banned by Switzerland. This is what “utter lack of evidence” means. The fact that instead of doing that, you segue into some unrelated contemporary political drama, is really telling.
That phrase, "utter lack of evidence": I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm done trying to argue with you — you clearly see only what you want to see.
And nice try with the "some unrelated contemporary political drama" — it's all of a piece, with far-right Republicans trying to do a Cardassian "there are five lights" routine (from ST:TNG).
> Up a level: why were "activists" protesting Cop City at all? I thought "more training" was the thing people were always agitating for.
If this is an honest question, it must be coming from a lack of knowledge about policing in the U.S. for the last two decades:
After 9/11-- and especially after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq-- there was an escalation in militarized police tactics, equipment and grants. Some of this started in the preceding decades during the war on drugs. But anti-terrorism federal grants and many other sources of funding for militarization training and equipment flowed like rivers post 9/11. This funding was-- and mostly still is-- available to police from the largest cities to the smallest municipality. This and the war on drugs have become a sizable chunk of police department budgets. If you go to a town of 1,000 people and see a local police humvee vehicle tooling around, they got it at least in part through some militarization or anti-drug grant. Possibly both. (Note: if there's a dog in the humvee it's probably the latter, which means the department has an ongoing obligation to show stats for how they've been using this equipment and dog in successful anti-drug efforts. Not sure what the obligations are for the anti-terror grants, though.)
By at least the 2010's, critics on both the left and right were speaking about the problems of this approach to policing. Essentially, a) it creates/exacerbates an "police vs. citizens" approach to policing that's at odds with the core goal of police being a community service for citizens, and b) there isn't enough time in a day nor money in a municipality to train police to do public safety and develop the skills necessary to competently use military anti-terrorism/anti-insurgency tactics and equipment.
The activists who aren't radical-- e.g., the ones who aren't anti-state-- typically want more (I'd say better) training on the public safety side of things. This means things like de-escalation techniques, outreach with citizens, partnering with social workers, detective work, etc.
What you will nearly never hear police reform activists in the U.S. agitating for is more militarization training and equipment for the police. That includes a number of the civil libertarians on the right.
Finally, I'll say that the activists I've read are convinced that Cop City is all about funding more militarized training of Atlanta PD. I don't know enough about the plans to know whether that's true or not. But the idea of activists pushing back against ostensible police militarization training/funding is in keeping with two decades of efforts on the left-- and right-- to protect the bill of rights in the 21st century.
> it must be coming from a lack of knowledge about policing in the U.S. for the last two decades
I think you're saying "doesn't agree with me." There's no lack of knowledge -- there's only a lack of indoctrination.
American cops are American cops. Crime spiked up until 1990 or so, then it was brought under control, and lately it's been spiking again. I think some people like you consider that a reasonable price to pay for whatever goals you're trying to achieve.
He shot and wounded a police officer
There is no evidence of this and some recordings of a cop saying it was another cop.
I have no horse in this race, but there is not “no evidence”.
A handgun registered to the activist was found at the scene and ballistics from the bullet that struck the officer matches that gun.
Later, the crime lab reported finding gun shot residue on the activist’s hands.
I think those 3 things together combined with ample witness testimony would typically be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The forensic evidence says his hands were empty (exit wounds though both palms), his arms were raised, and he was probably sitting on the ground cross legged when the cops shot him at least a dozen times.
The initial crime lab report showed no gun shot residue, and the forensics imply the police lied about the incident. Witnesses testimony is contradictory.
In my opinion, there’s no reasonable doubt that the police murdered him, execution-style. There is reasonable doubt that he shot the officer.
>The initial crime lab report showed no gun shot residue
The initial report was only a visual inspection. When you do a more sensitive test, you get more accurate results. There is nothing sinister about this sequence of events.
>On April 19, the DeKalb County Medical Examiner's office released an autopsy, which found at least 57 gunshot wounds on Paez Terán's body and ruled their death a homicide; the autopsy also found no evidence of gunshot residue on Paez Terán's hands.
Aside from the cops' testimony there seems to be 0 evidence supporting that Tortuguita shot at them.
Another commenter posted a link that reported they did find gunshot residue: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/autopsy-cop-city-protester-...
I think it's worth noting that this report comes from the Georgia's GBI, i.e. the same people who are accused of killing the activist in question. The previous report comes from a (nominally) neutral source (the DeKalb County Medical Examiner's office).
In other words: the accused are investigating themselves, and have produced a report that suggests that they were justified in killing a climate activist. I think that's a pattern we'd normally treat with extreme skepticism; it's unclear that GBI has earned an exception to that.
Probably not the murderer? FBI, local jurisdiction, literally anyone would be a better choice than the institution accused of committing the crime.
> local jurisdiction
Good news then, the State DA recused and GBI is a different agency than the state police.
>Georgia's GBI, i.e. the same people who are accused of killing the activist in question.
No; the Georgia State Patrol is the primary agency that was involved. It's a different agency.
Who should conduct this investigation then?
Depending on the investigation's ultimate scope, either the federal DOJ or an independent investigator's office.
(It hopefully isn't controversial to say that, as a general principle, entities in positions of exceptional public trust or interest should not be tasked with enforcing or regulating themselves.)
I’m not sure what an independent investigators office is, but assuming it’s a private firm would you not have the same criticism that it’s not a neutral third party and is biased towards whoever hired them?
What is the role of a state level investigation bureau if not to investigate state-level issues involving state agencies?
I meant something like Washington DC's OPC. Note that these commissions are not themselves perfect; they're typically limited in authority to "recommendations," which the police (or DA) may still ignore.
However, to answer the following (which isn't what I meant, but I think is interesting):
> but assuming it’s a private firm would you not have the same criticism that it’s not a neutral third party and is biased towards whoever hired them?
I think the answer to this is similar to the answer found in arbitration: arbitration is typically performed by a well-known firm, and that firm is obligated through contract to perform fair proceedings. In other words: there are civil penalties on the table if the independent party does not execute their job fairly.
That being said, I think an unrelated but still governmental investigation arm would be sufficient here.
> What is the role of a state level investigation bureau if not to investigate state-level issues involving state agencies?
You can find the GBI's services listed here. They have a lot of responsibilities, most of which aren't tied to investigation of local police. I think it'd even be fair to say that they aren't particularly equipped to investigate local forces.
We are releasing a photo of the handgun that was in Manuel Esteban Paez Teran’s possession when a Georgia State Patrol trooper was shot on January 18 at the site of the future Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. The handgun is described as a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm. Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun. Other preliminary information released in this case is consistent with the investigation so far.
So they have a photo of a gun that was "in his possession" but not of him actually possessing or welding it, and also testimony about an autopsy where the lack of gunpowder on his hands indicates he didn't shoot it. Truly damning evidence, next we will see a picture of the car registered in his name that he could have used to run over puppies and children.
They have records of him buying the gun. It was in his possession.
Him having a gun is not evidence of him using one.
That is correct, records of him buying the gun are not evidence of him using it. I was responding to this part of your comment "So they have a photo of a gun that was "in his possession" but not of him actually _possessing_ [...] Truly damning evidence" There's ample evidence that he possessed the gun, we don't need a photograph of literally everything to reasonably conclude things.
The bullet they found in a cop's stomach matching the gun he owned is evidence that he used it, albeit not unimpeachable proof because matching bullets to guns is a matter you can reasonably question. Nevertheless, I think the sum of the evidence thus-far presented supports the narrative that he shot a cop then the cops turned him into swiss cheese, possibly with the man trying in vane to surrender while that was happening.
OK, he owned a gun, that was found with him, at the time of his death, and his hands were found to have primer residue. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
Wikipedia seems to leave out that the state did a more thorough test and did find gun powder residue.
Yes, more thorough. Using a chemical test to look for an often invisible substance is an obvious step to take. Conversely, visually looking for that same substance and then saying it wasn’t there when you don’t see it is laughable.
If I shot you 57 times you'd be lousy with gunpowder residue. Bullet holes and gunpowder residue. So trace amounts of gunpowder residue on a bullet riddled corpse is not in any way conclusive evidence they fired a gun.
There is no evidence I’ve found to support that theory, can you cite a study that flying through the air at close to the speed of sound doesn’t brush GSR particles off the round?
Patterns of Gunshot Residue Gunshot residue (GSR) may be deposited by two mechanisms: (1) impact deposition from particles propelled by the force of the blast, and (2) fallout deposition of drifting particles that settle on a surface. Persons close to the blast, specifically the shooter, will likely have GSR from impact. Bystanders are likely to have GSR particles from fallout. Shooters are more likely to have a greater number of particles than bystanders, but not always. Settling of airborne GSR may take up to 10 minutes following firearm discharge. The depostion of GSR particles following initial firearm discharge is primary transfer. However, secondary transfer of these particles to other surfaces can occur from contact with the surfaces or persons on whom the particles have deposited, as with handshaking or contact with clothing. Movement of persons following the shooting, or even scene investigation by forensic scientists, may alter GSR distribution. Further tertiary or even quaternary transfer is possible. Law enforcement personnel may carry particles from prior shooting events. (Blakey et al, 2018)
The amount and pattern of GSR deposited may vary by the gun used to fire the bullet. Most GSR emanates from the ejection port of a semiautomatic pistol. GSR is expelled from the gap between cylinder and frame of a revolver. There is greater particle number with revolvers than with automatic rifles. Particle numbers are greater with nonjacketed bullets, mainly due to an increase in particles composed of lead. A faster burning rate of propellant powder reduces the distance of GSR particles travelled. (Blakey et al, 2018) (Vachon and Martinez, 2019)
GSR may be expelled from the firearm ahead of the bullet, along with the bullet, and following after the bullet. Though the amount of residue deposited tends to decrease with increasing range of fire, the actual deposits can be highly variable for ranges up to 20 cm.(Brown, Cauchi, et al, 1999) GSR has been reported to be found at distances from 6 to 18 meters forward of the shooter, and up to 6 meters laterally. However, climatic conditions significantly influence recovery rates for GSR. (Dalby et al, 2010) Use of atomic force microscopy (AFM) for detection of particle size in relation to range of fire has been described. (Mou, Lakadwar, and Rabalais, 2008)
Not to mention it's trivial to leave gunpowder residue on a corpse you know was carrying...
Would hardly be the first time, just a random sample from the last 5 years:
'While the official autopsy report states “gunpowder residue is not seen” on Teran’s hands, it is not conclusive because gunpowder is not always visible to the naked eye. A gunshot residue kit was performed, but those results have not been returned from the GBI Crime Lab, the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.'
Those results were later released. They were positive.
I shoot handguns on a monthly basis. Anecdotally, I have to do a lot of shooting before I have visible residue on my hands.
Either way, he surrendered to the police with both hands empty, and was shot a dozen times. Then the police officers that were involved lied in the report.
Also allegedly, right?
An environmental activist who shot at, and potentially wounded, a police officer.
This is like a drug trial that reports deaths and neglects that people died in a car accident.
Yale should be more responsible and work harder to have accurate reports if they want people to use their reports.
> Yale should be more responsible and work harder to have accurate reports if they want people to use their reports.
Why do you think Yale even included the incident that the parent commenter was referring to?
How taking that into account makes shooting cops any better idea?
One side being bad doesn't exclude other side sins.
It's problematic because all proofs of the alleged "sins" come from a known bad actor.
Or is being circumspect about the claims of those holding absolute power not part of the hacker ethos anymore?
> Recently Georgia police killed an environmental activist protesting the construction of Cop City:
I mean, thanks for the link I guess, but I'd say this sentence leaves out some very important details. Namely, that the cops are claiming that this person shot and seriously wounded a cop first.
To be clear, your linked article explains how it's not really clear yet what the sequence of events were, or if the person actually shot a cop. But I'd put it like this:
1. If the person did shoot the cop first, I have no problems with the other cops opening fire.
2. If the person did not shoot the cop first, then the cops should face severe legal charges.
Since the facts on the ground are not yet known, I'll withhold judgment.
You are arguing that climate protestors should be able to shoot people without repercussions?
He’s arguing that people with the “correct” politics are more equal than others.
Humankind went down that road plenty of times in 20th century. It always ended poorly.
> It doesn’t matter
This is insane to me. It absolutely does matter whether the person actually shot at the cops or not. The idea that people should be free to go around shooting other people because it's a cause they believe in is when society really falls apart.
I am curious why my post was downvoted so much. It's like people don't want to even wait until the facts are fully known. They want to go with the side that validates their preconceived narrative (whichever narrative that is), reality be damned.
> The idea that people should be free to go around shooting other people because it's a cause they believe in is when society really falls apart.
This is literally what the cops already do
They threatened his life and then blamed him for another cop mis-firing on the cop...
You forgot the /s
With the existence of qualified immunity, American cops are immune to #2. They should but they won’t.
No. Qualified immunity is about immunity from lawsuits for damages; it has nothing to do with criminal prosecution.
I know what qualified immunity is, but your statement is easily provably false given that there are many instances where cops have been found guilty for assault, unlawful killing or excessive force.
I'm not arguing it's as easy as proving it for a civilian (after all, as part of their job cops are allowed to use force under particular circumstances), but these black-and-white statements like "They should but they won’t" just show to me how uninterested people are listening to anything that may change their opinion.
Many is relative to the amount of illegal police activity. Depending on your perspective, that is not nearly enough and so saying they won’t be charged is perfectly warranted.
That you posted this shows a lack of interest by you to look into the other perspective, and that you’d rather be pedantic and dismissive than acknowledge their viewpoint.
> That you posted this shows a lack of interest by you to look into the other perspective, and that you’d rather be pedantic and dismissive than acknowledge their viewpoint.
Sorry, not going to let that BS slide. I was referring to a comment that said "With the existence of qualified immunity, American cops are immune to #2. They should but they won’t." It's not "being pedantic" to point out that comment makes absolutely no sense, given (a) qualified immunity isn't even relevant in criminal cases, and (b) they are making a blanket statement with no concern for the actual facts of the situation.
The thing preventing cops from being brought on charges is, the vast majority of the time, an uncooperative DA. qualified immunity is a complete red herring.
That article does not provide much evidence to support the police view of the situation.
> According to the report, more than "five particles characteristic of GSR" were found when using a "scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) and analyzed for elemental composition and particle morphology"
> According to the DeKalb County Medical Examiner's report, Teran had at least 57 gunshot wounds in their body, including the hands, torso, legs and head.
> While the Atlanta Police Department released body camera footage that shows audio of the shootout, there is no footage that shows the actual incident, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
I don't know anything about GSR testing, but 5 particles seems low for someone firing a weapon. With 57 shots that hit him it seems reasonable that significant GSR would be present even if he did not fire a weapon. I can't find any sources to indicate typical particle counts for firing a weapon.
I have a hard time imagining a situation where police have the opportunity to shoot (and hit) 57 times without resolving the threat.
I also cannot think of a good reason for the police to not have their cameras on when approaching the protesters. The police had the opportunity to ensure that there was enough clarity and evidence to make an educated decision, but they chose not to.
> I also cannot think of a good reason for the police to not have their cameras on when approaching the protesters. The police had the opportunity to ensure that there was enough clarity and evidence to make an educated decision, but they chose not to.
This is the smoking gun for me. Judgement should automatically be against the police anytime it's found they willfully disabled their bodycams during a disputed interaction.
They didn’t disable their bodycams. The department that shot Teran doesn’t have them in the first place. This is obviously a problem, but it’s not as serious of a problem as willfully disabling them before shooting someone.
> No, that is total bullshit, and sick of people, who have clearly already made up their mind, asserting there is certainty in the facts when that is obviously not true.
That’s fine to be sick of them - but it’s still not an argument against what I said.
Not picking a side is siding with the status quo.
Cops lie, but activists are right there with them. It may be impossible to know what happened.
This is completely unjustified. You’re clearly the one that’s picked a side without any thought to understand the specifics of this incident.
Tragic, yes. But from a journalistic perspective at least these deaths would probably be more accurately described as arising from disputes over land rights (as opposed to the environmental activities of the victims). Most likely died as a result of "drawing a line in the sand" after declaring some degree of self-sovereignty. In other words, they played a dangerous game and (rather predictably) lost.
I think it's one of the intents behind the article to call for less barbaric settlements because we want more disputes like that in the future, not less.
How we measure the people killed by activists? Wild fire, ambulance etc.
Given that the majority of these seem to be occurring outside of the West (even thought the West is obviously directly involved in the corporate hand shaking that drives these murders), what should we do?
I think Western countries should definitely be enacting much heavier environmental protection laws, including ones that affect overseas territories (ie being able to link a Western exec to a corrupt forestry deal in Brazil = life in prison).
But the truth is that Western governments are already corrupt, we've allowed billionaires to hoard wealth, wages have stagnated, political lobbying aka bribing is considered normal (esp in America).
And the above is all only possible because the general population doesn't rise up to protest these issues, why does everyone just simply not care? Obviously as animals we're mostly concerned with what directly affects our tribe (big or small) but these issues do affect us, especially environmental ones.
Is it overstimulation, modern life is so much more complex especially with technology in the mix? Is it resource contention, ie people would prefer their power bill to be $10 cheaper even if it causes a global temperature rise over decades? Is our ability to be social animals lacking, having evolved to only participate in tribes of 150~ (as far as I've read) people, we can't all work together efficiently because of that?
Environmental activists are active spied on and blackmailed by Governments. Probably not the best use of taxpayer money?
"An environmental activist who was deceived into a two-year intimate relationship by an undercover police officer has been awarded £229,000 in compensation after winning a landmark legal case.
Kennedy was part of a covert police operation that spied on more than 1,000 predominantly leftwing and progressive political groups over more than four decades. Many undercover officers deceived women they were spying on into sexual relationships during their covert deployments."
Environment activists: 'I got death and rape threats’: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-54165868
There are alot of flagged / down-voted comments on here that express a negative view (to put it mildly) against climate activists. The reason for that I think is at least in the west, climate activists get a very bad rap because of their tactics.
Every time I hear a story about climate activists it's always: stopping traffic by gluing themselves to the road, gluing themselves other places, spraying paint/tomato sauce/etc on walls, windows, and art. Now I get that this is a small subset of the climate activism but I even then I think that climate activists need to seriously rethink their tactics.
Blocking traffic for example is in my opinion a completely counter-productive way of protesting. Rather than spreading your message, the only message you are spreading is: "I'm blocking traffic, I'm a complete a**hole" and the downvoted comments here reflect that sentiment. If you want to spread your message, you need people on come join your side, and no one is going to want to join your side if you're using these kids of tactics.
> Now I get that this is a small subset of the climate activism but I even then I think that climate activists need to seriously rethink their tactics.
All means to fight climate change will always be used, and many people will always find a strawman to justify their inaction, or worse their actions against a better future... I don't think it's fair to put more blame on environmental activists than on the rest of people.
Even if you extend 'all means' to exterminating the entire population of rich countries (where most activism takes place), it's not going to be enough to stop climate change.
This is true. However, no matter how desperate the situation is, we'll still have opportunities to make it less bad, or much much worse.
Morally this justifies killing climate activists. You’re painting them as terrorists and monsters.
> climate activists get a very bad rap because of their tactics.
If the tactics is effevtive, we call them disruptive terrorists. If the tactic is ineffective, like organising the 30th climate change conference. we ignore them or laugh at them.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It's almost as if that's by design...!
The article was very short and very vague. "2k environmental activists killed in the last decade." Top comment? Spurred a debate about ONE cop shot in Georgia.
Most people on this site believe in technological solutionism as savior, therefore climate activists are being annoying over a problem that scientists are totally going to solve any day now and we won't need to adjust our lifestyles even one little bit, so they should just F off. (And I bet quite a few of the people on this site work in adtech, too, and feel entitled to people's attention - funny how that works.)
What would you recommend as a strategy that is hard to ignore but not disruptive to average people?
Why do they need to be hard to ignore? They don’t have a right to attention.
What do “rights” have to do with the question? What a weird strawman.
You don’t, generally, have a “right” to not be annoyed by protestors, if that’s really the road you want to go down, here.
Sure I do. I have freedom of conscience and freedom of association. I am on no way obligated to give them a way to protest that ensures my attention.
Neither of those imply a right to not be annoyed. They imply a right to walk away from the annoyance. They would, similarly, have the “right” (in whatever weird sense the word is being used, here) to craft a plan that would make that difficult. And so on.
“Rights” are a bizarre/incoherent way to look at this.
They don't have any right to my attention precisely because I have the right to walk away. How is that not the moral framework involved?
Honestly, good answer.
Imagine all these obnoxious climate activists went and lobbied politicians. I guess they don't have any grease to put in the politicians palms...?
Why hard to ignore? Is the premise that everyone is ignorant of the special knowledge that only activists have and everyone should be forced to consume? Perhaps most people already know about the subject and are either already making their own changes or simply don't care. In both cases, hard to ignore activism does nothing to advance the cause and only serves to discredit the message by making it associated with unlikable and often seemingly unhinged activists. Of course if the purpose is to impress one's friends, mission accomplished.
The counterpoint to this is, of course, the civil rights movement, which forced the nation to see segregation and mobilized national support for immediate action.
Were the sufforogates easy to ignore when they invented the letter bomb?
They were evil people but not hard to ignore.
Can you name a group that was fighting for freedom and change that was never labelled terrorists or traitors?
It appeara anyone fighting an existing power structure, will always be accused, no matter what tactics they use.
Our moral systems aren't going to line up to the point I can deliver an answer that will satisfy you. The only moral tactic is pacifistic opting-out. Most activists are as evil as the people they are fighting.
You only believe in pacifism? If someone is doing evil, no one can morally stop them? That seems rough.
I see parallels between the agent provocateurs in a protest and this new breed of obnoxious climate activist. Does anyone else?
> Nearly nine in 10 killings last year took place in Latin America, with three in 10 occurring in Colombia
> Globally, one-third of victims were Indigenous people.
It's not about climate activists that 'glue themselves to roads'.
What's a global issue for most commenters here starts as a local issue for many.
Please read the article.
I see here a horse that has been shown water but does not want to drink.
You're right, and in this very thread there are climate activists arguing that they should have carte blanche to murder people for their cause.
I used to be involved in the climate movement. Of course, the people who are blocking traffic and defacing art are in minority within the movement but they are the ones who are ones getting most of the attention in the press.
Just that you are mentioning them, it shows that it is more effective than the information campaigns and lobbying the rest had been doing.
Performative activism is about showing off one's loyalty to the group, not about enacting actual change. Their actions make complete sense once this is considered.
What's the killed-rate of non-activists?
From the cherry-picked datapoints in the article, it's impossible to tell if an activist is more or less likely to be killed than a non-activist.
IOW, maybe activists get killed less often then non-activists?
 They use the word "kill" not "murder". This means that they include, in their dataset, people who died due to accidents.
No, "killed" still includes intention of the killer. You may be thinking of "died".
> No, "killed" still includes intention of the killer.
Not as I understand it.
If I lost control of my car and ran you down, I would have killed you, but not murdered you.
If I step on a landmine, it is grammatically correct to say "I was killed by a landmine", even though a landmine cannot have intention.
Murder requires intention. Kill does not. The article, written by (presumably) a professional writer and edited at a professional publisher, almost certainly wanted to achieve the sleight-of-hand effect that they have achieved with you - to make it seem as if those deaths were intentional.
This is partly why I am skeptical about the narrative they are selling.
Hi, instead of trying to discredit the idea that people are being murdered for defending the environment from exploitation, by pointing out the ambiguity in the word "killed" as used in a Yale e360 article about a report on investigations by Global Witness, why don't you go to the source and do a good faith attempt to understand what is going on?
Here's a link to get you started, where they unambiguously use the word "murder": https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-act...
There is a lot of evidence about what is going on, beyond just Global Witness, so how about engaging with something more substantive than word play in a third party article? I know it makes people uncomfortable to acknowledge it, but it should be acknowledged.
When they say “defender” or “environmental activist” - what does that mean? I’m struggling to understand how you qualify for those titles. Am I a defender if I say I want to protect land or do I have to go further and do something more agressive?
> Hi, instead of trying to discredit the idea that people are being murdered for defending the environment from exploitation, by pointing out the ambiguity in the word "killed" as used in a Yale e360 article about a report on investigations by Global Witness
That was not my intention. My intention was to discredit a study that provides statistics with no baseline.
Statistics with no baseline to compare with are almost always misleading statistics.
> I know it makes people uncomfortable to acknowledge it, but it should be acknowledged.
Is this just something you consider a moral imperative?
Or is there a measurable benefit from acknowledging it?
> Is this just something you consider a moral imperative? Or is there a measurable benefit from acknowledging it?
Do you ask those questions about other facts? Yes, there is a moral imperative and a measurable benefit about not being in denial about reality.
Where do they talk about the benefit? I'm just curious what the effect is.
We're these deaths from activism or with activism?
The implication (that this many people are murdered specifically for environmental activism) sounds prima facie unrealistic. How many people are included in their definition of "environmental activist", and what is the risk-adjusted base rate for murders in that population? It sounds like they're including a lot of people from very high-risk populations. The fact that 88% of killings are apparently in Latin America (especially Colombia) is suggestive - this has to be picking up a significant amount of cartel conflict and trying to pass it off as environmentalism-related.
> The implication (that this many people are murdered specifically for environmental activism) sounds prima facie unrealistic
Only because you have not been paying attention.
Are you sure? Because when I actually looked at the claims in detail, as described several sentences farther into the paragraph, it turns out that my priors were correct
> it turns out that my priors were correct
No, they are not. Read the actual report. Do some actual research. It will take you a lot longer than a couple minutes to debunk Global Witness's work of over a decade.
If I was trying to clearcut a forest or build a dam in South America I'd happily point my finger at "cartels" any time something unfortunate happened on my land too.
Almost all happened in Latin America where individual rights, including to own and defend yourself with potent firearms, is severely limited (except for agents of the state). Without this fundamental ability and political right, lawful good individuals will suffer and fail. History is replete with examples of this basic and obvious fact. Armed minorities are more difficult to oppress.
Several countries in Latin America are near the top in murder rate, guns or no guns. That activists are killed more often in places where people in general are killed more often doesn't by itself tell you much about whether guns should be legal or not.
I think you should now apply that reasoning to Mexico. Pretty sure the guns there aren’t making it safer.
There is one gun store in all of Mexico and a two-tier ownership/permitting system where only the oligarchy class actually has rights to arms. No wonder it isn't safe when the average person is deprived of the means to defend themselves.
As someone who migrated from a very conflictive area of Latin America, this is the answer, period. But the minute you mention this to the incumbents here in the US (specially to those claiming the need to “amplify” underrepresented voices) all of a sudden you will not be an ally anymore.
Indeed. American liberalism (in the most general rather than partisan sense) has for decades tied itself to the ideal of nonviolence. In practice means that it favors orderly incumbency (however oppressive) over messy revolution (however justified). It's not armed groups are good by definition; many of them are highly questionable or outright appalling, eg FARC or the Maoist Shining Path group. But this 'nonviolence' posture and its magical exclusion of most state violence ensures that unarmed movements are impotent. An impressive dichotomy for a country that celebrates its own violent formation with fireworks and song every July.
That is not by accident. The history of gun control in the USA (and mostly elsewhere) is deeply rooted in racism and classism. The very idea of an armed minority challenging the status quo terrifies individuals living lives of relative privilege and prosperity. Even if they don't consciously apprehend their bias (and most lack the emotional and spiritual maturity to do so), they are useful in promoting the false narrative of "only the State must monopolize power" as they are the benefactors of it.
I'm delighted by this split brained reality in America.
"facts" as stated by a particular left group. - Cops are oppressive, unreformable and should be abolished - The GOP has become fascist and are looking to overthrow the government - The rich will choose to murder us all slowly via climate change and retreat as they did during the pandemic to let the masses suffer
- We should outlaw everyman gun ownership because of the harm it causes.
It occurs to me that its probably a projection of our first-past-the-post political system that means these views all get amalgamated together, because they sure don't make logical sense.
They make sense if you assume one thing: gun owners are never going to rise up and throw out the bad guys in government. If that is never going to happen, all those guns are really only used to kill a bunch of innocent people, rather than the bad guys in government.
If you think gun owners are really somehow going to save us from fascists at the top, when is that gonna start, exactly? What would actually get them to start fighting? I frankly don’t see it ever happening.
I know our national myth of the American revolution is that freedom loving patriots are going to rise up and throw off the oppressors, but that is a pipe dream. The answers are in the ballot box, not the cartridge box.
Did you read the parent post I was replying to?
All those guns are going to kill a bunch of people because the other side, you I'm guessing in this case, have decided to willfully disarm yourself because you believe the ballot box is the sole savior. I expect because such people are afraid of accepting a world in which they must be responsible for their own safety.
Along that same path, I'm not worried about a fascist in Washington DC, I'm worried about the one next door. The ones who see some queer kids stocking up at a rural store, and follow them to their campsite to tell em they aren't welcome with threats, and destroy their sense of safety. (Speaking from experience) Ballot box doesn't fix that, but couple weekends of pistol training and drills can help.
Do you suppose that Jews in 1930s Germany would have suffered such horrific treatment had they been armed?
Some comments have pointed out that this doesn't actually mention a difference from the base rate of violent deaths in the relevant countries. Sure, fine. I think the other significant missing numbers are those who die from human-driven environmental disaster. One estimate on climate change deaths in the recent decades is 2M, and the WHO has estimated 250k/yr in 2030-2050.
Since we collectively have known about climate change as a concern for decades, and have known that large numbers of civilian deaths, disease, displacement, etc are predictable results, and have nevertheless chosen to pump carbon in to the atmosphere at ever-increasing rates (except a single dip in 2020), then under a consequentialist framework, these un-targeted victims ought to count just as much as intentionally-targeted activists.
If those who benefit from the pro-emissions status quo may kill you whether you protest or not, either through neglectful inattention to the consequences their own actions, or through hostile retribution, but they can only possibly be confronted with any direct responsibility for their _intended_ victims, perhaps it's best to protest.
As an ethics note, I am aware there are those who say, "we're not responsible for the 250k/yr who die from climate change in the near future merely because we emit above a sustainable level; our _goals_ were merely to heat our houses and fly to Europe on vacation, whereas the _goal_ of someone who murders an activist is clearly to cause death." And I think this _can_ be part of a coherent ethical vision, but I would ask that they revisit Anscombe's critique of Truman's decision to use fission weapons on civilian targets. If you believe that it was "good" to drop the bombs and hasten the end of the war because it resulted in fewer total deaths, and the hypothetical deaths averted in a long conventional war have the same moral weight and standing as the civilians killed by the atomic bombs, then why would you not believe that targeted and untargeted climate deaths have the same ethical weight? Or from the converse side, if you believe we are not responsible for deaths caused as predictable effects of actions which are motivated by heating/transporting/building etc, i.e. you believe an important ethical factor is the presence or absence of an _intention_ to kill innocent people (as versus merely knowing they will be killed as an effect of an action initiated with some other intention), then do you also believe that Truman, who chose to drop the bomb on cities, is a mass murderer?
Imagine a world where the military was used to protect the environment.
There are many, many slave vessels that dump huge amounts of plastic netting into the ocean (a double digit percentage of the pacific garbage patch is discarded fishing nets).
They can do this because it is in international waters, and the law doesn’t apply.
Spy satellites continuously produce proof that this is happening.
Why can’t we have the navy seize the damn boats as part of their training exercises?
Your suggestion is that the United States military unilaterally seize other countries vessels who have broken no laws?
The British Admiralty of the 17th and 18th century would have absolutely loved you.
Thia ain't the issue.
We fraudulently sent trash to Malasia, in breach of western and malasian laws. The local mafia and western firms forgre 'recycling' documents. The trash gets dumped in the ocean.
The mafia kills reporters and journalists thay go in to inveatigate.
Thats why China has banned plastic imports last year, it was an unpoliceable cesspool of crime and western firms were forstering crime in the developing world.
Because international waters are international waters.
Do you want China to start cruising around the world and arbitrarily enforcing their laws on other citizens?
So international waters are lawless? How about exploding test atomic bombs there, is that allowed too?
If you could then I doubt anyone would try to stop you
If you stop and think for a minute this is obviously wrong.
We have fishing quotas, ban on testing nuclear weapons, etc.
Yea but Japan still goes into the southern marine whale reserve waters and kills 1000 odd whale every year
North Korea does nuclear tests all the time. If they did it in the middle of international waters, do you think that would result in military action against them? I highly doubt it
What if they enforced UN law?
Well there's no such thing as UN law.
There is nothing above the sovereign nations and they are only bound by their treaties, bilateral and multilateral - despite having a name like "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", this is not some law which UN could pass or modify, it's a treaty which is binding only on those who sign it, and any modifications to add extra restrictions it will be binding only to those ships whose countries agree to these restrictions. UN (and any other international organization) is subservient to the sovereign countries or a place of discussion, not some "world government" above them.
One country using the threat of violence to stop non-violent (but still bad) acts by citizens of another country in neutral territory seems like a bad idea.
It's not non-violent if it's causing harm.
Shooting a ship with a gunboat is still more violent than tossing a used fishing net.
Tossing a million such nets is a more fair comparison.
> It's not non-violent if it's causing harm.
Oh man… that’s a slippery slope.
Allows you to justify using force against all sorts of non-violent things you don’t like.
See the many examples where aggressive force was used “for the greater good” in the 20th century if you want some spoilers for how that turns out.
This is basically all of human history, laws and being imprisoned - holding someone against their will counting as a more modern, refined form of violence, though necessary.
But for that specific scenario, yes it is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons. But only because we're just a bunch of animals on a rock and we just can't seem to agree to play nice with each other.
I blame evolution.
> “Research has shown again and again that Indigenous peoples are the best guardians of the forests and therefore play a fundamental role in mitigating the climate crisis,”
Where can I read more about this research?
There's a lot. I can rec. a few books?
The UN has a lot on it too!
I don't understand the argument. "Certain structures built by certain cultures are ecologically beneficial, therefore ecological restoration efforts should be culturally informed"? Why? I'll grant that earthen and shell mounds are beneficial. So build them. I don't understand why the fact that this or that person built it is relevant. More to the point, "some practices of culture X are ecologically beneficial" doesn't lead to "culture X is better at preserving the environment than culture Y".
Anti-scientific garbage. The author clearly has a preconceived notion that Europe and Enlightenment ideals (presumably including science) are evil, and the rest is derived from that.
> So build them. I don't understand why the fact that this or that person built it is relevant.
I don’t think the specific person that built it is important, that would be ridiculous. But I can completely see the argument that structures built by cultures that evolved in exact environment they’re being built in are much more likely to be ecologically beneficial, than those designed by cultures foreign to that environment.
The local culture will be filled to brim with historical knowledge and techniques all formed and shaped by the unique resources and requirements of their local area. You could rediscover all of that knowledge using the scientific method, but why bother? The local cultures have already done the heavy lifting, just find away to continue applying it. I don’t see why it’s surprising that indigenous peoples end up building more ecologically appropriate structures.
> Anti-scientific garbage. The author clearly has a preconceived notion that Europe and Enlightenment ideals (presumably including science) are evil, and the rest is derived from that.
Quite frankly, Europe/science has just been through an extend period of believing that humans are capable of overcoming nature, and can generally just ignore ecological consequences, because future technology will deal with those consequences (the Victorians were renowned for this type of thinking, something the UK is still dealing with today). We of course know now that just ignoring nature and building over it results in an unimaginable number of unintended consequences, and far more that we’re capable of innovating our way out of. Overall it’s smarter to avoid impacting our environment as much of possible, and to use tools and techniques that are sympathetic to the local environment, rather than treating the local environment as an obstacle to be removed.
>You could rediscover all of that knowledge using the scientific method, but why bother? The local cultures have already done the heavy lifting
No. The heavy lifting is determining whether a specific practice is ecologically beneficial or not. The people who built those mounds did not document how they arrived at the practice of building them (although it's safe to assume it wasn't a scientific process), so someone had to evaluate whether they are ecologically beneficial or not. The same would have to be done for any other practice, same as you'd do for any other idea someone comes up with. A proposal for action is worthless is there's no indication that it suits the desired goal.
>I don’t see why it’s surprising that indigenous peoples end up building more ecologically appropriate structures.
Because everyone is indigenous to the place they're from, and people routinely build structures in their homelands that are environmentally destructive. Do you think, say, Roman aqueducts were not at least disruptive? This implicit distinction you're making between "indigenous" and "not indigenous" is exactly what the idea of the noble savage is.
People are people. They'll build the things that suit their needs and in the process they'll destroy some things they don't care about, and some that perhaps they should.
>Quite frankly, Europe/science has just been through an extend period of believing that humans are capable of overcoming nature
I don't see any non-Europeans doing anything differently. Do you? It seems to me that the only people not trying to massively transform the environment are those who don't have means to do it.
> No. The heavy lifting is determining whether a specific practice is ecologically beneficial or not. The people who built those mounds did not document how they arrived at the practice of building them (although it's safe to assume it wasn't a scientific process), so someone had to evaluate whether they are ecologically beneficial or not.
I would hardly call that heavy lifting. Validation of an idea or process is substantially easier than creating one (although I don’t claim that validation is easy, just easier).
> This implicit distinction you're making between "indigenous" and "not indigenous" is exactly what the idea of the noble savage is.
No I don’t make any claim that indigenous designs are inherently more ecologically sound. But I would claim they’re more likely to be ecologically sound given they’re developed by a culture that presumably also had to deal with the consequences of their designs. Cultures that completely destroy their environments aren’t known for their longevity.
> I don't see any non-Europeans doing anything differently. Do you? It seems to me that the only people not trying to massively transform the environment are those who don't have means to do it.
Sure, but few other cultures have demonstrated such a propensity for environmental destruction so far. Even if it just a lack of means, it doesn’t change the fact that designs will also be constrained by their lack of means, forcing them to innovate within a much narrower envelope that doesn’t allow them to simply bulldoze their local environment.
Ultimately the underlying intention behind the designs of any particular culture are irrelevant. I’m not making any claims that indigenous cultures are inherently less destructive, simply that their culture will have been shaped by their local environment, and thus will inherently be more sympathetic to their local environment, simply out of necessity. As our entire species is slowly discovering, cultures that don’t respect their local environments tend to die off as food, water and other required resources start disappearing.
So to more succinctly summarise my argument. Indigenous designs have the wonderful advantage of survivorship bias, the humans and their intentions are almost irrelevant.
>I would hardly call that heavy lifting. Validation of an idea or process is substantially easier than creating one (although I don’t claim that validation is easy, just easier).
Creating an idea takes practically no effort. I can do it right now: let's fix global warming by lassoing passing ice comets and dropping them in the ocean. What takes effort is filtering the useless ideas from the useful ones. If a past culture had some practice that just tells you they came up with something and determined that it was useful for their purposes. We still need to know if it'll be useful for our purposes. There's not reason to think the purposes are the same, and if they're entirely unrelated the idea in question is not likely to be more useful than my astronomical rodeo.
>Sure, but few other cultures have demonstrated such a propensity for environmental destruction so far.
So, for example, the Chinese don't have some of the most polluted cities in the world, right? They're not Europeans, so their propensity to destroy the environment (including their own living spaces) is lesser.
>designs will also be constrained by their lack of means, forcing them to innovate within a much narrower envelope that doesn’t allow them to simply bulldoze their local environment.
So if you agree with that, then it follows that anyone who has access to bulldozers will use them to solve at least some of their problems, right? Regardless of whether they're European or not, right? Then I don't understand what you're arguing and why you're singling out Europe.
>So to more succinctly summarise my argument. Indigenous designs have the wonderful advantage of survivorship bias
That's only because they had been doing the same things for hundreds if not thousands of years, and at small scale without powered tools. There was practically no chance they could have screwed the environment to bad they would have died out; I can't think of a single historical example like that, other than possibly Easter Island. If your argument is "returning to a pre-industrial lifestyle will be good for the environment" then I agree with you, but I don't think that's in the cards. I imagine people are looking for solutions that fit into our existing society, not to tear everything down and start over.
> Creating an idea takes practically no effort. I can do it right now: let's fix global warming by lassoing passing ice comets and dropping them in the ocean.
Right, so we’re just going to ignore the fact that all of these ideas had to be tested in field, and work well enough to ensure the society that builds them continues to survive, including preserving its local environment so it isn’t forced to continually move as it forever strips its local environment of useful resources. I guess you also believe that borrowing any ideas from nature is also a waste of time because evolution doesn’t bother documenting its design process?
> There's not reason to think the purposes are the same
If the goal is ecological sustainability then I’ve already outlined a number of reasons why the incidental purposes would meet that goal. The intended purpose is irrelevant if environmental conditions force designs to be ecologically sustainable (and I’ve already outlined why that might be the case).
> So, for example, the Chinese don't have some of the most polluted cities in the world, right? They're not Europeans, so their propensity to destroy the environment (including their own living spaces) is lesser.
I never claimed that non-European cultures don’t damage the environment, that seems to be something you’re intent on reading into my words. I’m afraid there’s nothing I can really do to help you there.
Obviously other cultures damage the environment, and if you read my comments you’ll notice I even agree that reduced environmental damage is probably a consequence of lack of means, rather than a deliberate attempt at preservation. But European cultures have the longest and best documented history of environmental destruction, not because Europeans are special or evil or any other crap you've accused me of implying, but simply because they’ve had the most time and means to damage the environment. Simple consequences of the Industrial Revolution starting in Europe, nothing more.
> That's only because they had been doing the same things for hundreds if not thousands of years, and at small scale without powered tools. There was practically no chance they could have screwed the environment to bad they would have died out
Yes, that is literally the point I’m trying (and apparently failing) to get across.
> If your argument is "returning to a pre-industrial lifestyle will be good for the environment" then I agree with you, but I don't think that's in the cards.
Close, but not quite. More like we shouldn’t simply dismiss designs and practices created by less developed cultures, or pulled from the annals of time simply because they lack documentation and weren’t built following the scientific method. Those designs clearly solved useful problems, and did so in innovative way that were sympathetic to their environment out of necessity. Just like biomimicry is a valid design approach (and I note that evolution is legendary for its lack of documentation, and well understood goals), copying and borrowing designs and practices from indigenous cultures, where those cultures have co-evolved with their local environment over hundreds to thousands of years, also has huge value.
I really don’t understand why you’re finding it so hard to believe that a cultures designs and practices might be heavily influenced by its local environment, and likely achieves some level of equilibrium with its local environment given time. And that maybe, just maybe there might be something to learn.
> I imagine people are looking for solutions that fit into our existing society, not to tear everything down and start over.
We’re talking about whether or not indigenous structures and designs might be a good approach to long term conservation of a local environment, not “are we all just doing life wrong and need to start again”. If we’re looking for way to conserve what’s left, then why the hell would we blanket ignore the approaches developed by people who were forced to conserve simply to survive?
It would be more constructive if you could explain why you think these sources are crap, like the other commenter.
Why would I explain same thing again ?
If you don't have anything constructive to add, I think HN would prefer if you don't comment at all.
Decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio helps nobody.
You keep adding noise by complaining about it tho
I think trying to improve the quality of discourse is not quite noise, but yes I agree it would be better if not required.
That being said, your root comment is flagged/dead now, so this entire subthread contributes little to the noise regardless as it will be hidden to most users.
The indigenous people of China are dumping rather a lot of plastic into the ocean.
> dumping rather a lot of plastic into the ocean
Half of that plastic is fraudulently shipped there by western 'recycling' companies. There is literally mafia that takes money of western companies, forges recycling documents.
And when a reporter goes overseas to find out id the plastic is being revycled, sometimes they don't come back.
That's still China charging for allowing plastic to be dumped there, though.
That are obvioulsly westernized indigineous people. Original indigineuos people don't have factories that produce plastic.
I don't have a factory that produces plastic, yet somehow I'm always recycling plastic that the products I consume are packaged with. Hmmmm.
Personally I'm a bit skeptical of this. Just right off the bat, it's easy to find research that shows how the Native Americans in California used wild fire to open up farming land. And there are the Native Americans who would drive entire herds of buffalo off of cliffs. They're human, not divine saints.
We're a few narratives deep.
You're responding to the "noble savages" strawman -- the OP article never claimed such.
(Moreover, you're responding with a relatively isolated incident of Native Americans driving buffalos off cliffs, which I agree happened and Is Not Good. But it's odd to mention in the larger historical context that the American Buffalo became endangered due to industrial scale slaughter caused by European settlers--A Big Deal, relatively speaking.)
On balance, yes, Native people are often the best guardians of the forest for a mix of reasons. One is the animistic belief systems, which falls under the "Noble Savage" bucket. But the other is they more often than not don't industrial-scale commoditize their living spaces, part and parcelling out the goods as raw material inputs. Which other groups, like Asians and Whites, often have.
Those smaller controlled burns help prevent organic matter from building up that can lead to more devastating uncontrolled fires. The national parks service has been incorporating those methods into their fire management practices.
And driving bison of cliffs were a sustainable hunting practice - it was habitat loss due to farming and commercial hunting that led to their population decline.
I think the argument is that native people have lived in that way for thousands of years and reached a state of equilibrium with nature. It is definitely more complex than just looking at individual events. It is not better or worse necessarily, just more stable. When you introduce new technology or even disease that stability is lossed. Ad an example the death of native Americans to European disease reduced the amount of intentional burning. This may have substantially reduced global co2 levels.
> lived in that way for thousands of years and reached a state of equilibrium with nature
Nature is not static. A small example would be Darwin's Finches shifting prevalence of break size from year to year. Or multi-year predator-prey boom and bust cycles. Or how bacteria learned to eat nylon in less than a century.
Cultures are not static. For example the Inca and Aztec empires apparently only date back to the 12th and 13th centuries.
Yes equilibrium after overhunting many large mammals and driving them extinct, horses, giant sloths, mammoths. Those indigenous sure know how to manage ecology!
Does that hold true when these people move out of the forests?
I could understand tribes in Brazil being protective over the forests that they currently live in, but do they still feel the same way after generations outside of living in the forest and adapting a more modern culture?
I say this because technically we _all_ came from the forests.
This is objectively terrible, and at numbers that high I would wonder if there were another factor like being affiliated with insurgent groups and factions vying for power, which are a constant multi-decade problem in those countries. I'd wonder if being affiliated with international climate causes makes you more likely to have a kidnapping ransom paid as well, as there is a lot of local context missing from the article. The stories and data are terrible, but at that level, they must be the effect of a dynamic.
It's also sad that this effects mainly indigenous populations in south america instead of the people who sit in the road and block traffic in the anglosphere, as the consequences seem to fall to the those who have earned the least resentment.