What are we trying to save?

[Archangel]

And yeah, I have read State of Fear.

I just had a talk with the missus about this, and it's interesting to see how the fear-mongering of the media has resulted in people spewing the most idiotic (not to mention contradictory) commonplace slogans.

Seriously, what are the environmentalists trying to save? Every other NGO is called "conservation" this and "preservation" that, but honestly, what the fuck does preservation have to do with nature? "Keep the balance", indeed. If nature were in balance, evolution wouldn't happen: As much as the left wants it to be, nature is not a socialist command econonmy. The fact that you and I aren't amoeba is testament to that fact. Progress only happens in imbalanced systems.

Heraclitus was a smart man. "Panta rhei", he said (Ovid translated it "cuncta fluunt" in his Metamorphoses). Everything is in flux; and boy, was he right. Everybody talks about the balance of nature, as if any given piece of green real estate was the way it always has been and always should be. It isn't: Nature, by its very, well, nature, is competition. One species dominating and supplanting another, species becoming extinct, whether through changing circumstances or through another species.
One act of nature can have a more profound effect on the ecology of any given region - or even the entire planet - than 250 years of human industrialisation, hell, 10,000 years of human civilisation. What was that factoid about the advent of photosynthesis - something we depend on and take for granted today - killing 80% of life on the planet back then? Where was Greenpeace then, telling those organisms not to produce oxygen because it's a corrosive gas, harmful to all those other unicellular organisms? Where was Earth First 65 million years ago, telling the Yucatán meteor that killing the dinosaurs (and radically changing the surface of the earth and setting the table for the rise of man) was bad?


Personally, the thing I find most disgusting is when environmentalists act like people aren't a part of nature. To do so isn't a sign of respect towards the environment, it's a sign of supreme Western/civilised arrogance, and the guilt that comes with it. So factories and motorways change the surrounding environment. How are they any different from termite mounds, raptor nests or beaver dams? So we change the development of certain species. Well, the dinosaurs suppressed the evolution of large mammals for, oh, 100 million years, but we shake our heads at our ancestors for hunting mammoths.
We, as a species, feel GUILT at the fact that we're at the top of the fucking food chain!
Or is it the species? Could it be just the fatal seeds that that imbecile Rousseau sowed? Because the Chinese and the Romans certainly didn't have qualms about building walls and aquaeducts through hundreds of miles of "pristine" (what an idiotic word) nature, just as the British build the greatest empire of our times by not giving a shit about what all that steam did to the sky. Notice that the Luddites, ancestors of our green knobheads, only happened in the wake of the Rousseau-inspired French Revolution.


Basically, what I'm fed up with is the lie. The lie that mankind could actually destroy nature itself. The lie that preserving the status quo has ANYTHING to do with nature. Let's be honest here. The ONLY thing we're trying to preserve is our laziness. Our comforts. Our CURRENT way of life. Now we're trying to tell the poor countries of the world that they can't build factories and power stations because we have to "save the climate": "Yeah, we made that mistake, and got obscenely rich, but you should know better, and by the way, we're sorry." What fucking hypocrisy.
Panic-mongering about the end of the fucking world? There are people living in the Gobi Desert, on the slopes of volcanoes, and on the glaciers of Greenland. If nature is adaptation, we're the most natural beings there are: We can thrive anywhere.


So fuck the slogans. Just man up and be honest. Just say what you really mean: "Save the planet's current state so the rich nations of the West can live in utter comfort and safety". Doesn't sound as good as "Save the Planet", but at least it's the fucking truth.

[Pox]

Really? You can't see why someone would want to preserve natural spaces? Under any circumstances? Would Yellowstone look better wth strip malls?

[UNC]

Whatever man does also falls under nature taking its course.

But I do agree that these environmentalists take it to the extreme

[Pox]

Humans aren't termites. Termites don't appreciate aesthetic beauty. Termites don't create smog. Having opinions about specific environmental issues is one thing, but being against the very idea of conservation is weak sauce.

[kid_vidrio]

So fuck the slogans. Just man up and be honest. Just say what you really mean: "Save the planet's current state so the rich nations of the West can live in utter comfort and safety". Doesn't sound as good as "Save the Planet", but at least it's the fucking truth.

And the eagle, looking at the fletching on the arrow in its chest said 'It is by my own hand I am smitten.'

I agree with you in theory pal, but if three people join me and my family and imbalance my jacuzzi with their shit in the name of advancing from amoeba to human, we're going to have a problem.

Humans, as a species, are growing faster than natural resources can sustain them. I know you suck at math, but this is not complex. We know it, and hence, failing to do anything about it, are as ignorant as those that are fucking us into oblivion.

You can complain about environmental groups giving themselves names that aren't historically accurate when taking meteors into mind, but you will complain much louder when ecosystems start to fail on a grander scale.

[Archangel]

Really? You can't see why someone would want to preserve natural spaces? Under any circumstances? Would Yellowstone look better wth strip malls?

Yellowstone?


Seriously?

Worst possible example ever of humans trying to "preserve" natural habitats, and failing every step of the way. Try reading this (http://www.amazon.com/Playing-God-Yellowstone-Destruction-Americas/dp/0156720361).

Here's a short summary, from State of Fear:

Yellowstone Park, he explained, was the first wilderness to be set aside
as a natural preserve anywhere in the world. The region around the
Yellowstone River in Wyoming had long been recognized for its
wondrous scenic beauty. Lewis and Clark sang its praises. Artists like
Bierstadt and Moran painted it. And the new Northern Pacific Railroad
wanted a scenic attraction to draw tourists west. So in 1872, in part
because of railroad pressure, President Ulysses Grant set aside two
million acres and created Yellowstone National Park.

There was only one problem, unacknowledged then and later. No
one had any experience trying to preserve wilderness. There had never
been any need to do it before. And it was assumed to be much easier
than it proved to be.

When Theodore Roosevelt visited the park in 1903, he saw a landscape
teeming with game. There were thousands of elk, buffalo, black
bear, deer, mountain lions, grizzlies, coyotes, wolves, and bighorn sheep.
By that time there were rules in place to keep things as they were. Soon
after that, the Park Service was formed, a new bureaucracy whose sole
job was to maintain the park in its original condition.

Yet within ten years, the teeming landscape that Roosevelt saw was
gone forever. And the reason for this was the park managers-charged
with keeping the park in pristine condition-had taken a series of steps
that they thought were in the best interest of preserving the park and its
animals. But they were wrong.

"Well," Bradley said, "our knowledge has increased with time ... "

"No, it hasn't," Kenner said. "That's my point. It's a perpetual claim
that we know more today, and it's not borne out by what actually
happened."

Which was this: the early park managers mistakenly believed that elk
were about to become extinct. So they tried to increase the elk herds
within the park by eliminating predators. To that end, they shot and
poisoned all the wolves in the park. And they prohibited Indians from
hunting in the park, though Yellowstone was a traditional hunting
ground.

Protected, the elk herds exploded, and ate so much of certain trees
and grasses that the ecology of the area began to change. The elk ate the
trees that the beavers used to make dams, so the beavers vanished. That
was when the managers discovered beavers were vital to the overall water
management of the region.

When the beavers disappeared, the meadows dried up; the trout and
otter vanished; soil erosion increased; and the park ecology changed
even further.

By the 1920s it had become abundantly clear there were too many
elk, so the rangers began to shoot them by the thousands. But the
change in plant ecology seemed to be permanent; the old mix of trees
and grasses did not return.

It also became increasingly clear that the Indian hunters of old had
exerted a valuable ecological influence on the park lands by keeping
down the numbers of elk, moose, and bison. This belated recognition
came as part of a more general understanding that native Americans had
strongly shaped the "untouched wilderness" that the first white men
saw-or thought they were seeing-when they first arrived in the New
World. The "untouched wilderness" was nothing of the sort. Human
beings on the North American continent had exerted a huge influence
on the environment for thousands of years-burning plains grasses,
modifying forests, thinning specific animal populations, and hunting
others to extinction.

In retrospect, the rule forbidding Indians from hunting was seen as
a mistake. But it was just one of many mistakes that continued to be
made in an unbroken stream by park managers. Grizzlies were
protected, then killed off. Wolves were killed off, then brought back.
Animal research involving field study and radio collars was halted,
then resumed after certain species were declared endangered. A
policy of fire prevention was instituted, with no understanding of the
regenerative effects of fire. When the policy was finally reversed,
thousands of acres burned so hotly that the ground was sterilized,
and the forests did not growback without reseeding. Rainbow trout
were introduced in the 1970s, soon killing off the native cutthroat
species.

And on and on.

And on.

"So what you have," Kenner said, "is a history of ignorant, incompetent,
and disastrously intrusive intervention, followed by attempts to
repair the intervention, followed by attempts to repair the damage
caused by the repairs, as dramatic as any oil spill or toxic dump. Except
in this case there is no evil corporation or fossil fuel economy to blame.
This disaster was caused by environmentalists charged with protecting
the wilderness, who made one dreadful mistake after another-and,
along the way, proved how little they understood the environment
they intended to protect."

[UNC]

That Michael Crichton is awesome.

I read that book a couple years back....twice.

[kid_vidrio]

Versus say Yosemite where the great meadows were turned to mud patches by countless people parking on them and are again great meadows because of regulation.

[Archangel]

And the eagle, looking at the fletching on the arrow in its chest said 'It is by my own hand I am smitten.'

I agree with you in theory pal, but if three people join me and my family and imbalance my jacuzzi with their shit in the name of advancing from amoeba to human, we're going to have a problem.

Humans, as a species, are growing faster than natural resources can sustain them. I know you suck at math, but this is not complex. We know it, and hence, failing to do anything about it, are as ignorant as those that are fucking us into oblivion.

You can complain about environmental groups giving themselves names that aren't historically accurate when taking meteors into mind, but you will complain much louder when ecosystems start to fail on a grander scale.

I'm not saying that we should do nothing. But what we're doing is tantamount to bulimia: We've gorged ourselves for centuries, and all of a sudden, we feel guilty and try to reject all of it.

Opposing the war in Iraq does not mean sympathising with islamists. Saying that the environmentalists have gone off their collective rockers and are pursuing political agendas (and thus, power) more than actual goals is not the same as saying "fuck the environment". Some steps SHOULD be taken. But I'd rather spend a few tens of billions eradicating hunger than building windmills, frankly.


But one point of yours is ironic: Remember how environmentalists talked about how deforestation in the rainforests might be making plants extinct that could hold the cure for cancer?

There's the hypocrisy again. Because a) only people from rich, industrialised countries could afford them, or b) curing cancer would cause life expectancies, and thus population levels, to explode, causing far more harm to the environment.

[kid_vidrio]

I'm not saying that we should do nothing. But what we're doing is tantamount to bulimia: We've gorged ourselves for centuries, and all of a sudden, we feel guilty and try to reject all of it.

Opposing the war in Iraq does not mean sympathising with islamists. Saying that the environmentalists have gone off their collective rockers and are pursuing political agendas (and thus, power) more than actual goals is not the same as saying "fuck the environment". Some steps SHOULD be taken. But I'd rather spend a few tens of billions eradicating hunger than building windmills, frankly.


But one point of yours is ironic: Remember how environmentalists talked about how deforestation in the rainforests might be making plants extinct that could hold the cure for cancer?

There's the hypocrisy again. Because a) only people from rich, industrialised countries could afford them, or b) curing cancer would cause life expectancies, and thus population levels, to explode, causing far more harm to the environment.
I'm more interested in the rainforests for their oxygen creating capacity and general filtration qualities. Cancer has increased with population - on that we agree.

Humans work on a pendulum, seldom making it to the central truth on the first pass. Lack of environmental awareness was out of control. Only about 2% of US wetlands remain. That's bad. Old growth forests, clean water... not to mention desertification, acid rain and so on.
The point is that the pendulum will swing to the environmental extreme before it settles nearer the middle.

[Archangel]

Humans aren't termites. Termites don't appreciate aesthetic beauty. Termites don't create smog. Having opinions about specific environmental issues is one thing, but being against the very idea of conservation is weak sauce.

The whole idea of conservation is fucking unnatural; that's my fucking point. Nature changed radically thousands of times before we even showed up: If left unchecked, things would change over time.
To try and stop things from changing, and acting as if that were "nature's way", that is the real crime here.


My problem is that change in nature is interpreted using moral parameters. Which is manifestly stupid. Change isn't "bad" or "good"; it's simply change. Just because the dinosaurs didn't appreciate that meteor, doesn't mean that their extinction was "bad". Things changed, and that was fucking that.

Nature doesn't have morals, yet ever since the 18th century, we try to apply moral dimensions to nature.

[Archangel]

I'm more interested in the rainforests for their oxygen creating capacity and general filtration qualities. Cancer has increased with population - on that we agree.

Yeah, but that didn't stop Greenpeace et al from making campaigns about how de-forestation was possibly, probably, certainly killing the cure for all diseases, when they, of all people, should be happy about people dying earlier and more often.

Humans work on a pendulum, seldom making it to the central truth on the first pass. Lack of environmental awareness was out of control. Only about 2% of US wetlands remain. That's bad. Old growth forests, clean water... not to mention desertification, acid rain and so on.
The point is that the pendulum will swing to the environmental extreme before it settles nearer the middle.

You have an Enlightenment-esque faith in humanity that I lack.

[kid_vidrio]

Yeah, but that didn't stop Greenpeace et al from making campaigns about how de-forestation was possibly, probably, certainly killing the cure for all diseases, when they, of all people, should be happy about people dying earlier and more often.
Greenpeace provides good news. I'm waiting for them to attack the wrong boat on the wrong day.
The whole name is an abomination. 'Green' and 'peace'? C'mon. They basically fuck two worthy efforts every time they show up and do anything.



You have an Enlightenment-esque faith in humanity that I lack.
Some sense of faith becomes a necessity when you have a kid I guess. My former motto, while choking down camel non-filts, was 'why walk down the path to death when you can run?'

Make no mistake though; I would just as soon reduce the world population by 70-80% leaving some unbridled nature for moi to wander through. I'm an elitist. I don't like other drivers, I don't like the people who make or watch most of the shit on TV. Fuck. I don't like most of the pussies on here. When I talk about preserving the planet, it is for ME ME ME.

[Archetype]

The whole idea of conservation is fucking unnatural; that's my fucking point.

But unhinged gluttony, that's totally a-ok.
Nature doesn't have morals, yet ever since the 18th century, we try to apply moral dimensions to nature.

So we have a responsibility to our conduct, but only as long as we push nature out of the way? Didn't you say that nature doesn't stop at man? So where's the separation, or are we "naturally immoral" and just shouldn't even try?

I don't care about the hardcore environmentalists. I've never met one. I'm pretty sure they don't exist. Or else they're like goblins. You always hear about them, but where are they?

[Archangel]

They were in our cabinet for seven years.

[freegood]

So fuck the slogans. Just man up and be honest. Just say what you really mean: "Save the planet's current state so the rich nations of the West can live in utter comfort and safety". Doesn't sound as good as "Save the Planet", but at least it's the fucking truth.

It's true. The world will still turn whether we fuck it up or not. It's on our asses to save ourselves. The West has been promoting our way of life as THE way of life. This is only an extention of our arrogance, but then again I don't want to live in the Gobi. Chinese don't want shitty air and yellow tap water.

And yeah, I have read State of Fear.

I just had a talk with the missus about this, and it's interesting to see how the fear-mongering of the media has resulted in people spewing the most idiotic (not to mention contradictory) commonplace slogans.


Yeah, environmentalism became an over the top slogan in some respects partly because the US was so successful in the 70s in eliminating toxic and bubbling rivers and city air quality so bad, it would've made the Chinese Communist party proud.

There was even an expected resource crunch in steel and lead because the Japanese and Europe would take it all. That's the way things are... people don't react until it burns them in the ass. I think Republicans hate ANYTHING green because they think it gives the government an excuse to reposess their land for a small bug or animal. As for Europe, they like to talk, but they still want the US to lead before they take care of their own dirty laundry. It's a game of chicken and no one's blinking.

But the big deal isn't that we're pollutting much. That you can just reduce carbon emissions with the iron fist from the masses with iron lung. The problem is how to fit another billion or two people in an industrialized way of life while the other 4 billion are rising up with eyes on our standard of living. Saving a furry cute animal by stealing a poor looking farmer won't do shit for that.

Pretty damn sad state of affairs today...

The whole idea of conservation is fucking unnatural; that's my fucking point. Nature changed radically thousands of times before we even showed up: If left unchecked, things would change over time.
To try and stop things from changing, and acting as if that were "nature's way", that is the real crime here.

My problem is that change in nature is interpreted using moral parameters. Which is manifestly stupid. Change isn't "bad" or "good"; it's simply change. Just because the dinosaurs didn't appreciate that meteor, doesn't mean that their extinction was "bad". Things changed, and that was fucking that.

Nature doesn't have morals, yet ever since the 18th century, we try to apply moral dimensions to nature.

I think people generally yearn for natural green landscapes with beaches you can swim in, which is why real estate is ridiculous on hills and coasts. That has economic value, as well as clean commons such as air and water quality. If we do ruin the earth and make it 100 times worse than urban china, who do you think will naturally get the clean air and water? The people who can fucking afford it. While they maybe 'smart' enough to realize adapting is a natural part of life, why suffer in an uncomfortable state?

Furthermore, environmentalism can/is work with business and progress. They probably have to in order to compete with the increasing resource demands of rising nations. If all of China lived like Taiwan, we would need at least 3 more earths to sustain them. The CCP realizes that, so they're building their cities in a different way. The tech we have now, they want to leapfrog because they aren't constrained by its infrastructure.

So environmentalism might not be natural, but in order to survive along with the fruits of our success and social progress, it may be the only way to sustain a fairer and civil society.

[zillionaire]

The evolution of humankind came with a conscience. We're the only species to have one, I do believe. We're also the only species with an appreciation for beauty. These two traits must have some evolutionary value. It's in our nature to want to preserve beautiful places, and to check our progress a little when we put the natural world in danger.

But, yes... our conscience in some places has done more harm than good. I have herds of deer that overrun my orchard and tear up my gardens, completely unafraid of us or our dog. To this day, I have never gotten a single grape from my scuppernong vines and I can only harvest the pears and apples from the topmost branches. (So much for my fantasies of homemade wild grape wine!) This is irritating at best, but come fall there will be deer rotting by the side of the road that I recognize. We've driven off any predators that might keep the herds in check, and the only predator left is far too civilized to keep his place at the top of the food chain by hunting his own food. Hunting is seen as cruel and barbaric, yet people don't even blink at the vultures cluttering the roads at the car-struck feasts we provide them.

[Archetype]

They were in our cabinet for seven years.

I know there's a cooking joke in there somewhere.

[Claydon]

This is a really interesting choice of topics for the philo thread, pleased to see it here as opposed to the Politics thread, even more so that it was posted by someone from the EU. The groups arch is pointing ie enviromentalists are a new type of religion nothing more and whoa to ANYONE who points out the hypocrisy or flaws of their leaders/prophets ie al gore etc. Kyoto Protocol was/is a sham, carbon credits?!....please. The russians signed onto the deal because they could then sell their carbon credits to the EU for billions of euros, somehow china was excluded because it is a 'undeveloped nation', the whole thing was a sham. This is really all about social engineering and control wrapped with pseudo science, everyone talks about global warming global warming..........what ever happened to acid rain? Why can't we improve our various technologies simply for the sake of pollution reduction? I do not think anyone is against that idea, but because the modern prophets of this new religion say the earth is hot that we must prevent 3rd world countries from creating power plants that would provide reliable electricity for things like vaccines in the 3rd world, preservation of food with refridgeration is just pure, unadulterated bullshit. In my opinion (and many others) this new religion is responsible for the death of tens of millions of people, with the banning of DDT, malaria infections have sky rocketed since it was banned, as most 3rd world populations are unable to gain access to antimalarial drugs due to any number of factors. The most effective means of preventing malaria was to inhibit the vector population, which DDT did very very well.

[kid_vidrio]

nice stream of consciousness. acid rain is still there, but great reduced because the particles that caused it were greatly reduced once isolated since it was largely affecting industrialized countries with the ability to regulate. as power consumption increases along with automobiles in china and india they might be faced with the very same scenario. regardless, it was real, based on real chemistry, and it did real damage to some environments and to a great deal of european culture (specifically historical landmarks, grave markers, statues, et al.) as for the rest being a sham, there are certainly shams associated with the 'new religion' because, get this, there are humans involved. that's no criteria for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Stax]

There are two paths of environmentalism here, Arch, and you somewhat blur them in an unnecessary manner. First, there are the Save the Whales/Pandas/Turtles/etc environmentalists you seem to refer to for the bulk of your post. The "save something for the sake of saving it" kind of people. Now, there's value to this I think. The world is better, both for selfish reasons (natural cures/remedies for things along with starting points for drugs are found all the time in rare plants and animals) and just general reasons (the world is just nicer with more than like 7 species). But I tend to agree people take this to the extreme.

The OTHER side of environmentalism you imply, however, are Climate Change folks. Here I think you completely miss the mark.

Our comforts. Our CURRENT way of life. Now we're trying to tell the poor countries of the world that they can't build factories and power stations because we have to "save the climate": "Yeah, we made that mistake, and got obscenely rich, but you should know better, and by the way, we're sorry." What fucking hypocrisy.
Panic-mongering about the end of the fucking world? There are people living in the Gobi Desert, on the slopes of volcanoes, and on the glaciers of Greenland. If nature is adaptation, we're the most natural beings there are: We can thrive anywhere.

Arch, that's just insane. Yes, the extremes of mankind can live in the extremes of the world. But there is a reason that technology AND population grow side by side, exponentially. Were we to experience large-scale climate shift and be forced heavily to regress (losing large masses of arable land along with millions, perhaps billions of lives) and society would be fundamentally altered. Your sort of arbitrarily "So what" position makes no sense. Can mankind as a species survive such a change? Probably. We'd be forced a little more to the edges for a while but we'd, as you say, adapt eventually. But you honestly can't see why people protest and suggest safer courses of action to avert the losses of BILLIONS of lives and huge parts of modern society?

You could survive if someone cut off your arms and legs, but does that mean you don't try to avoid losing your arms and legs?

[Kerjack]

Termites don't create smog.

Actually termites produce 20 million metric tons of methane gas a year.

That is all I have to add.

[wlack]

With a 3 year old and 9 month old I want them to have a nice life and not have to wonder in their 30's if it is worth having children themselves because the world's a trash heap - but CO2 is now irrelevant - we can't do anything about it for 100 years - but the real issue is pollution. We can survive higher CO2 - we can't survive polluted water and air. More people will die from polluted water and air than from higher CO2. If you have seen as I have rivers in China running black and the land covered in plastic - China's got to do something before everyone there soon dies from pollution induced cancer, lung disease....

[Claydon]

nice stream of consciousness. acid rain is still there, but great reduced because the particles that caused it were greatly reduced once isolated since it was largely affecting industrialized countries with the ability to regulate. as power consumption increases along with automobiles in china and india they might be faced with the very same scenario. regardless, it was real, based on real chemistry, and it did real damage to some environments and to a great deal of european culture (specifically historical landmarks, grave markers, statues, et al.) as for the rest being a sham, there are certainly shams associated with the 'new religion' because, get this, there are humans involved. that's no criteria for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Reduction in overall pollution is never a bad thing, I have nothing but contempt for the auto makers in the US and their customers that drank the collective kool aid with regards to vehicles getting 15 mpg in this day and age. I admire efficient engines that produce less pollution, and consume less petroleum, I believe scrubbers on smoke stacks for coal fired powered plants is a good thing but the zealots that seem to want to inhibit any and all economic progress in the name of the dung beetle are simply fools. Usually they are the berkley trust fund baby types that can afford to live such a lifestyle. At the same time I am not advocating raping the landscape and using cyanide leaching techniques to extract gold from low grade ore and therefore completely devastating a lake in montana for the sake of 1 billion dollars of gold. Ie I am a moderate on such matters and I truly believe.... people first (use ddt for vector control in africa) but lets minimize our impact (continue to develop more efficient car engines regardless of the price of oil).

[Grieves]

It's all just to feed egos and compensate for character deficiencies and vent control issues for people with social disorders.

When you get down to it, most of the people trumpeting this stuff have no real intention to save anything, and people follow them because they just want to finally feel like they belong and are a part of something and then curse anyone who tells them their little tea party is based on lies and hypocrocies.

I don't want the world to die, but it's not my call.

[scrum]

I think it's all about clearing your consciousness, you use your muscle car and then to compensate you plant a tree.

[Pike Bishop]

For a long time, coverage of environmentalism in the media has been a big pet peeve of mine. Whenever an "environmentalist" gets a microphone stuck in their face, it's some sociopathic asshole of a trust fund baby screeching on and on about the equivalency of human lives and animal's lives, Gaia theory, or some sort of similarly retarded metaphysical bullshit. These people have no intention of saving anything, to the contrary: they fully expect that the ship is going to sink, and their primary interest is in being able to say, "it wasn't us, it was THEM". Whoever "THEM" are. They seek to validate their miserable, meaningless existences by defining themselves not in any sort of constructive way, but by defining themselves in opposition to some demonized other. They have reduced what might be a noble, constructive and ultimately fruitful exercise into an odious circle jerk; a continuous competition to see who can be the most hard core. They have delivered a message to the mainstream: if you're not living in a cave somewhere, crapping in a composting toilet, devoting all of your waking hours to protesting whatever happens to be the fashionable demon to protest at this particular moment, and living on nuts and berries that you yourself have cultivated, you're part of the problem. And then these retards have the nerve to snicker at the (similarly idiotic, but clearly less hateful) suburbanites who claim to care about the environment, and yet commute to work 50 miles in each direction in a giant sport utility vehicle: "Haha what the fuck? They don't get it, what's the matter with them?"

Well, you're the matter with them, you stupid fuck. You scared them away. They could be helping. They could do better than they're doing but you told them that it didn't matter if they weren't as hard core as you so they just gave up (I'm addressing activists as a general class here, not anyone in particular).

Here's the deal: environmentalism is about keeping the planet suitable for human habitation, not saving it from humans. There is a sound scientific basis demonstrating that we are under threat as a species, not only as an affluent population. We inhabit an ecosystem that is presently capable of providing us with food to eat, air to breathe and water to drink. Human actions that present a threat to that particular state of affairs must be carefully considered by people who care about not only themselves, but the next several generations (if we regard propagation of ourselves as a species to be an important thing; I happen to). We should seek to avoid doing things that threaten that particular order, that's all. Unfortunately, activists have been all too willing to volunteer themselves as a straw man for the most selfish, greedy, and nihilistic among us.

[Archangel]

What he said.


Also:


Arch, that's just insane. Yes, the extremes of mankind can live in the extremes of the world. But there is a reason that technology AND population grow side by side, exponentially. Were we to experience large-scale climate shift and be forced heavily to regress (losing large masses of arable land along with millions, perhaps billions of lives) and society would be fundamentally altered. Your sort of arbitrarily "So what" position makes no sense. Can mankind as a species survive such a change? Probably. We'd be forced a little more to the edges for a while but we'd, as you say, adapt eventually. But you honestly can't see why people protest and suggest safer courses of action to avert the losses of BILLIONS of lives and huge parts of modern society?

You could survive if someone cut off your arms and legs, but does that mean you don't try to avoid losing your arms and legs?


I didn't say that we shouldn't try to preserve our way of life and our comforts.

I did say that we should be honest about it.

So fuck the slogans. Just man up and be honest. Just say what you really mean: "Save the planet's current state so the rich nations of the West can live in utter comfort and safety". Doesn't sound as good as "Save the Planet", but at least it's the fucking truth.

Just because I'm against executing retards and minors, it doesn't mean that I think all criminals should be allowed to run free.

elstavon put it best: These people ARE throwing out entire generations of babies with the polluted bathwater.

[Stax]

I didn't say that we shouldn't try to preserve our way of life and our comforts.

I did say that we should be honest about it.


You said it in a pretty insanely negative tone for what amounts to saving the planet.

[Archangel]

IT'S NOT ABOUT SAVING THE MOTHER FUCKING PLANET DAMMIT

[freegood]

WE TALKIN ABOUT MUHFUGGIN PRACTICE!

[Stax]

IT'S NOT ABOUT SAVING THE MOTHER FUCKING PLANET DAMMIT

Yes, it is Arch. Violent climate change can occur with the alteration of merely a couple degrees the wrong way, upsetting much of the world as we know it. Are there massively selfish human reasons to do it? Yes of course, but WHAT WE ARE DOING TO ACCOMPLISH THOSE GOALS is save the world. (I call saving the cheerleader, esp. if it's Hayden)

[Oleg]

Yes, it is Arch. Violent climate change can occur with the alteration of merely a couple degrees the wrong way, upsetting much of the world as we know it. Are there massively selfish human reasons to do it? Yes of course, but WHAT WE ARE DOING TO ACCOMPLISH THOSE GOALS is save the world. (I call saving the cheerleader, esp. if it's Hayden)

The issue that I have is that the measures that have been put in place to combat climate change are almost completely self-serving. Kyoto has been a tool used to create a new form of derivative security (carbon credits), that has in turn been used to make the wealthy even more wealthy. I have clients making billions (literally billions) of Euros in carbon trading and as their lawyer I don't tend to have many discussions with them about how they're saving the planet. In that sense, Arch is right: the people making the rules aren't out to save the planet, they're out to save their little part of it.

[Stax]

The issue that I have is that the measures that have been put in place to combat climate change are almost completely self-serving. Kyoto has been a tool used to create a new form of derivative security (carbon credits), that has in turn been used to make the wealthy even more wealthy. I have clients making billions (literally billions) of Euros in carbon trading and as their lawyer I don't tend to have many discussions with them about how they're saving the planet. In that sense, Arch is right: the people making the rules aren't out to save the planet, they're out to save their little part of it.

That's true, but at the same time isn't that what economists should want? The market solving the problem? Obviously carbon credits aren't a natural creation of the market, but that's because pollution is an externality without an immediate cost that can be charged to someone. Thus this market was made through law to create market pressures towards lessening pollution. The motives behind the individuals might be cold and economic, but that doesn't make the overall result any less good.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

I don't care about the hardcore environmentalists. I've never met one. I'm pretty sure they don't exist. Or else they're like goblins. You always hear about them, but where are they?

Oh, they exist. Come up to the Sierra Nevada's sometime for a looksee.

[twisterf5]

i really dont know

[satandole666]

Didn't they already do a study that concluded it would be more economical to cure malnutrition and hunger than attempt to fix global warming?

Then again...since when do numbers and economics matter in science?

I'm all for having a smaller footprint on the environment but the current religion of environmentalism would see all corporations shut down or neutered if they had their way.

Anyone see the Bullshit episode where they got hundreds of people at a rally to sign petitions banning Dihydrogen Monoxide? Al Gore would be proud.

[Pike Bishop]

^ See, this illustrates my point perfectly. All you activists out there? You make people like this feel like they've actually got a point for some reason. You're a dictionary definition of the term "straw man". The next time I'm in Harvard Square and you ask me for fifteen minutes because somehow talking to me is going to save the earth, and I tell you to bugger off, it's not because I don't care about the environment, it's because:

1.) I can't bear to listen to some retarded undergrad go on and on about stuff that I already know about while watching the spoiled brat of a Dave Matthews groupie pretend that he's revealing the fucking world's secrets or something.

2.) I already work for a company that is populated by scientists and engineers who are in the process of actually doing something about all of this stuff (as opposed to just talking about it) and every minute that I spend listening to you is a minute that I spend not helping them.

3.) I can't support you because you've already chased away more people than you ever could have converted with your ridiculous shtick.

4.) You are, as mentioned previously, helping corporate shills paint the environmental movement as a whole as a bunch of tree-hugging hippies. This encourages ignorant dumbfucks to make fun of all of us, not just you. That makes me want to shove that clipboard of yours maybe five feet up your ass.

5.) You're a cunt.

[satandole666]

What'd you say?

[Charlatan]

Chalk up one more to the short list of things I agree on with Arch. I can't stand to see so many idiots these days insisting that we protect the environment, which they understand so little of, by preserving things exactly the way they are right now, or were fifty years ago, or whatever. Change is good. Change is natural and inevitable. For a very long time before human beings were a big deal, tons of species went extinct all of the time, only to be replaced by new life. Changing ecosystems simply meant new adaptations.

From what I've seen, environmentalists often reek of hypocrisy and ignorance. It's really a shame, because treating the environment right is a great idea.

[kid_vidrio]

You are all throwing the baby out with the bath water.
So what if we call it 'saving the earth', 'saving the planet' or the 'blah blah initiative.'
The common ground here is that if we continue with teh status quo, the earth's current eco systems, which support our way of life will be altered to a point where they won't support even the 6 billion we have now, let alone the 12 billion we'll have in 20 or so years.
Why is it so hard to put away the names and labels and face up to this very real crisis?

[Archangel]

Because I don't like being lied to.


I mean, if my neighbour cries about how he needs money so he can save our apartment building, I might be inclined to give him some, and show understanding for his issues.

However, if I find out that by "saving our homes" he actually meant "re-upholster his leather couch", I'm gonna punch him in the fucking face.
And that's exactly what the environmentalists are doing: Creating panic and yelling about how we're all gonna die if we don't save the planet, when what they really mean is that we have to save our comfortable lifestyles.

I mean, if I'm a starving African, and I hear that people in the West are spending billions to save some fucking beetle while letting my family starve to death, I might not be too happy.

[Stax]

However, if I find out that by "saving our homes" he actually meant "re-upholster his leather couch", I'm gonna punch him in the fucking face.
And that's exactly what the environmentalists are doing: Creating panic and yelling about how we're all gonna die if we don't save the planet, when what they really mean is that we have to save our comfortable lifestyles.

No, they aren't. They are saying "Save our planet, which will lead to selfish gains for ourselves." Your example fails because reupholstering the couch doesn't save the house. In this case their stated goal is true (save the planet) it may merely be partially due to secondary selfish goals (preserve human society as we know it).

I mean, if I'm a starving African, and I hear that people in the West are spending billions to save some fucking beetle while letting my family starve to death, I might not be too happy.

Again you confuse the stupid "Save the whales" environmentalists with climate change stuff. Very different groups.

[Charlatan]

Again you confuse the stupid "Save the whales" environmentalists with climate change stuff. Very different groups.You sure it's not just the same group that's now moved on to the latest cause? (Talking generally, here.)

[Pike Bishop]

What'd you say?

They've put one over on you, sorry to say. Penn and Teller have their moments of hilarity, no question. But you appear to have wound up under the impression that everyone who cares about the environment is some kind of "tree-hugging dumbfuck", a stereotype that I'm sure a whole bunch of corporate assholes are quite eager to perpetuate. My whole point is that those very same dumbfucks are doing their (our) cause a disservice by convincing people like yourself that the majority of people associated with environmentalism can be painted with the same (stupid) brush. I take that as a personal insult. I don't blame people for being taken in by such an obvious canard, I blame the people who have made it possible for others to perpetuate the stereotype. If the only face of environmentalism that the average person ever saw was associated with the most vocal elements within environmentalism, such a person would clearly have to be forgiven for thinking that we're a bunch of idiots. That's what pisses me off.

[satandole666]

They've put one over on you, sorry to say. Penn and Teller have their moments of hilarity, no question. But you appear to have wound up under the impression that everyone who cares about the environment is some kind of "tree-hugging dumbfuck", a stereotype that I'm sure a whole bunch of corporate assholes are quite eager to perpetuate. My whole point is that those very same dumbfucks are doing their (our) cause a disservice by convincing people like yourself that the majority of people associated with environmentalism can be painted with the same (stupid) brush. I take that as a personal insult. I don't blame people for being taken in by such an obvious canard, I blame the people who have made it possible for others to perpetuate the stereotype. If the only face of environmentalism that the average person ever saw was associated with the most vocal elements within environmentalism, such a person would clearly have to be forgiven for thinking that we're a bunch of idiots. That's what pisses me off.

Ok...just checking.

[Oleg]

They've put one over on you, sorry to say. Penn and Teller have their moments of hilarity, no question. But you appear to have wound up under the impression that everyone who cares about the environment is some kind of "tree-hugging dumbfuck", a stereotype that I'm sure a whole bunch of corporate assholes are quite eager to perpetuate. My whole point is that those very same dumbfucks are doing their (our) cause a disservice by convincing people like yourself that the majority of people associated with environmentalism can be painted with the same (stupid) brush. I take that as a personal insult. I don't blame people for being taken in by such an obvious canard, I blame the people who have made it possible for others to perpetuate the stereotype. If the only face of environmentalism that the average person ever saw was associated with the most vocal elements within environmentalism, such a person would clearly have to be forgiven for thinking that we're a bunch of idiots. That's what pisses me off.

If you replace "environment" with "blacks", this post sounds way funnier. I'm just saying.

[Archangel]

No, they aren't. They are saying "Save our planet, which will lead to selfish gains for ourselves." Your example fails because reupholstering the couch doesn't save the house. In this case their stated goal is true (save the planet) it may merely be partially due to secondary selfish goals (preserve human society as we know it).


No.

"Saving the planet" is a fucking lie, plain and simple. No matter what the fuck we do, the planet will survive. It survived photosynthesis, it survived the Yucatán meteor, it survived volcanic winters, it survived ice ages.

"Saving the planet" implies that the planet itself is at risk and needs to be saved, which simply isn't true. The planet's just fine. It can cope with a little change far better than we can. Every near-extinction level event resulted in even greater complexity and diversity rising from the ashes, the rubble, the ice. If the dinosaurs had managed to "save the planet", we wouldn't be here today to bitch about some moth becoming extinct.

There is a difference between some crumbs in your bed making it less comfortable to sleep on, and said bed being on fire. We're being told that they are one and the same.


Again you confuse the stupid "Save the whales" environmentalists with climate change stuff. Very different groups.

No.

You sure it's not just the same group that's now moved on to the latest cause? (Talking generally, here.)

What he said. The same idiots who marched against nuclear power in the 70s are the ones talking about how it can reduce CO2 levels today.

Climate change is their agenda du jour, that's all. It gets them in the newspapers, and increases their political influence. In a couple of years, when we manifestly WON'T be all dead or living in caves, they're gonna scream and panic about some other shit that will kill us all, not to mention "the planet".

And guess what, I still won't give a shit.

[kid_vidrio]

And guess what, I still won't give a shit.
I would say this is the common denominator amongst those who have a major issue with whether people say 'save our planet' instead of 'save our future.'

You do give a shit; about shoes, the Amalfi coast, philosophy, good food, the mrs, and a score of other things. Perhaps less so about whether any progeny you have will have the option to give a shit about those same things.

[Archangel]

People have been saying for 60-odd years that overpopulation is the gravest threat humanity is going to face. THAT, I do care about. I'm not agreeing with China's population control methods, but apparently, they work. And with a serious dearth of women in that country, it's only gonna get less populated there; good for them. Imagine if we had African conditions in China.


Environmentalists? Flavours of the week. I don't take people who keep crying wolf seriously: Imagine, then, what I think of people who yell something else every other week.

[kid_vidrio]

On this there is no doubt. Humans in general, and overpopulation specifically, seems to be the real problem.
What we need is a series of solid natural disasters followed by disease and pestilence. Maybe a few nukes to lead it all off, knock us back to a billion or so.

[Archangel]

1 billion less Muslims would be a start.

[doors43]

This is an interesting thought here, Arch (you were due). :)

I don't look at it so much as trying to "save" the planet (that's retarded) or to preserve endangered species (also retarded and not our place), but I see a good spin on their efforts, in that people become more reliant on natural resources. That is not a bad thing. Using solar and wind energy, to me, is a lot better than burning coal and oil... and not because it's Middle Eastern money and non-renewable resources, but because it's more, well... natural. I'm a naturalist in that sense. I like organic food and would grow my own if I had the resources. I like the idea of composting and using solar and wind power. I like turning off my faucets here and there to save water or getting an oxygen-infused shower head, blah, blah.

In those respects, I think conservation and becoming more green are good things... but not to actually save anything. We've got to be pretty ignorant to think we may actually destroy the planet. Humanity possibly, but not the planet. It's fine.

[Pike Bishop]

Environmentalists? Flavours of the week. I don't take people who keep crying wolf seriously: Imagine, then, what I think of people who yell something else every other week.

Multiple personality disorder?

[Gzus]

As humans, we will eventually find a way to fuck up our planet enough for it to kill us. It's an inevitability because we are, as a majority, ignorant to the side effects of everything we screw up.

[doors43]

As humans, we will eventually find a way to fuck up our planet enough for it to kill us. It's an inevitability because we are, as a majority, ignorant to the side effects of everything we screw up.

Our planet will not kill us. We may destroy ourselves as a race, but it will not be the planet doing anything.

[Archangel]

What is this, Final Fantasy VII?

[doors43]

^ I never liked that game. The fighting in it used to piss me off.

[Archangel]

Boo.


GTFO.

[doors43]

You should be happy enough that I knew the damn game. It's your thread, dammit. Be happy I'm contributing.

[Datači]

*contribution*

[Archangel]

*neg*

[Datači]

I was being sarcastic, homosexual and shit!

[nickadams]

I have no problem with individuals, companies and societies being more responsible, less wastefull and somewhat held accountable for their footprint or lack of concern for it, but I do have a problem with the attitude that if you don't have your lips wrapped around the cock of the Environmental Fear Factory, you're a right wing white devil. I think the problem lies in most people just being generally lazy and it skews up exponentially as individuals get together.

[svtdriver]

I agree with nick on this one.

Humans are, by nature, inherently lazy and self-satisfying. We seek to further our own personal means first, and then MAYBE if we have time take care of others. Doesn't matter what everybody else says about the "good" in mankind. Unfortunately for us, that "good" pretty much disappears when the shit hits the fan. But, there are still the select few who look out for others before themselves. If you find one, stick to 'em.

[yard]

to the origional poster...


you could not be more right...

we are not only stopping natural selection, we are reversing it...

think of all the genetic abnormalities that years ago would have killed the person.. now with medical technology we are able to keep them alive long enough for them to reproduce and replicate their defective genes....

[Okie Medicvet]

Our planet will not kill us. We may destroy ourselves as a race, but it will not be the planet doing anything.

How the planet reacts to us and how we react to the planet do determine our lives and deaths..

[Insomniac]

A wolf that eats up all the rabbits is in a bad way, but he isn't much better to pretend there are no rabbits and just eat grass, or force other wolves to.

I'm a strong supporter of conservation because the idea is that you're conserving the environment for people. You use resources responsibly because you don't want to end up like Easter Island (yes, I read Collapse). To cut down trees without planting new ones at a rate of replacement is stupid. To stop using wood at all is irredeemably stupid.

[freegood]

Bamboos can grow more than a 3 feet a day. It's technically a grass, but the material is as hard as wood. We don't necessarily need trees like evergreens for our wood. It's just the approach and altering people's selfish whims on what they think should be wood.

[nickadams]

I'm not framing my house out of bamboo.

edit: or bamboos

[Archangel]

In Hong Kong and Taiwan, they build the scaffolding for the construction and upkeep of 1000-foot high skyscrapers out of bamboo.


And compared to others, American homes are basically made out of paper anyway.

[nickadams]

American homes are made pretty shitty - poor quality of materials mostly to blame. I'll still take shitty #2 pine lumber over bamboo. the guys who framed my house were confused enough.

[DeMartini Sands]

Entropy - All things in life break down, let them go naturally, however as GUESTS of this planet, let's not fuck things up by speeding up the process. Do we really think that Mother Nature is some thing to fuck with????

[Archangel]

What the fuck?

[kid_vidrio]

Humankind is potentially fucked (in keeping with the 'fuck' theme established in these last few posts.)

[VoxAngelikus]

Everything is potentially fucked.

[freegood]

Everything with a hole is potentially fucked.

[kid_vidrio]

In the presence of STDs, especially the life threatening ones, fucking is fucked.

[Bill Paxton]

In the presence of STDs, especially the life threatening ones, fucking is fucked.

Psssh, there are hardly any life threatening ones left. AIDs is a joke now, Hep B and A have vaccines, Hep C takes years to kill you.

[STDSkillz]

Psssh, there are hardly any life threatening ones left. AIDs is a joke now, Hep B and A have vaccines, Hep C takes years to kill you.

You broke the 'fuck' string. Hope you're happy.

[Bill Paxton]

You broke the 'fuck' string. Hope you're happy.

You double broke it.

[allyourbase]

Speaking of which, there is no gasoline at any station near me. No one can get to work. So I agree.

[Pike Bishop]

I agree as well. Bring back the 'fuck' string!!!