Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists

Jeanie

Rushlimbo wrote:

He brought the world ER and the rise of George Clooney !!

I never said he had no redeeming features!

Purple Hawk

Jeanie wrote:

Yeah, well it's cool that you see him as well articulated and you agree with him.

I'm saying that I don't find him to be particularly well credentialled and given his below average writing skills I'll take most of what he has to say with a grain of salt.

I love yah jeanie, you know that, but common, I only expect that kind of response from the clinton campaign

just looking for some substantive rebutals to the speech...i think it's straight on

hippiemom

Purple Hawk wrote:

Translation: "I also did not say that we are destroying the planet....but we are"

HIS POINT IS THAT THIS POINT OF VIEW IS BASED ON FAITH, NOT FACT

And no, it is NOT possible that we can alter the planet in such a way it becomes incapable of supporting human life.

That point of view is part of the religiousity of the environmentalist movement...we are clearly capable of killing all of mankind...but the notion that we can "destroy the earth" is like believing in creationism.

Ok, I finished reading it. Towards the end there he says this:

Michael Chrichton wrote:

At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.

He wants an organization that is ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, has proper funding protocols, and is honest ... and he presents the FDA as an example of such an organization?!!?! Now I am utterly convinced beyond all doubt that he doesn't have the slightest fucking idea what he's talking about.

If you don't think that we're capable of ruining the planet's ability to sustain human life, that's cool. I'm a little curious as to why almost every reputable scientist who isn't on a polluter's payroll disagrees with you, and why I should believe you and Michael Chrichton over them, but whatever. I hope you're right.

Purple Hawk

Rushlimbo wrote:

He is entitled to his opinion but I dont agree with it at all.

you talking about Rush, or M-C?

Rushlimbo

Purple Hawk wrote:

I love yah jeanie, you know that, but common, I only expect that kind of response from the clinton campaign

just looking for some substantive rebutals to the speech...i think it's straight on

OK, how about the DDT story he hangs his entire story on? Any proof? Without anything scientific (that's what he says he wants in the article) then his entire argument is destroyed.

Jeanie

Purple Hawk wrote:

I love yah jeanie, you know that, but common, I only expect that kind of response from the clinton campaign

just looking for some substantive rebutals to the speech...i think it's straight on

Well you know I have no interest in American politics Hawk, so don't be thinking that I'd be siding with any political campaign.

Gee I disagree with it from the title alone, and as I said he's not really someone whose opinion I would find particularly illuminating when it comes to the environment, religion and a host of other subjects. So one article, spouting his opinion, isn't going to sway me to support the guy. If he'd actually DONE something of merit when it came to the topic, then perhaps I'd reconsider. He makes some interesting points. But I'd have to say that I mostly don't consider his opinion particularly noteworthy.

ClimberInOz

Purple Hawk wrote:

He is saying that modern day environmentalism is a religion for the Godless. His point was that the Earth was never "prestine," it's always been an angry sunnuva bitch...that's all he's saying...

and all the other stuff you're saying...about us destroying the planet, we can't. if our one objective was to destroy the planet, and put all of our resources towards it, we couldn't do it. we can kill ourselves, yes, but the planet? to think so is arrogance beyond belief.

My point in posting this brilliant speech is that the environmental movement IS political, and not moral.

I agree that we are not going destroy the planet... but that we may well destroy ourselves.

Environmentalism is and should be an entirely selfish pursuit for the human race. We conserve resources because it is the way for us to survive, we protect rare species because it improves our quality of life to be able to go and oggle them and makes us feel like good people. Whatever our reasons, it ultimately comes down to looking after ourselves.

But that is by no means a justification to abolish the current environmental movement. I agree that there are fringes of the environmental movement that are lacking any connection to reality- but you will never avoid that.

The very fact that we can destrpoy ourselves, even if the world continues to tick over in our absence, is enough of a reason to be a passionate environmentalist.

Purple Hawk

hippiemom wrote:

I'm a little curious as to why almost every reputable scientist who isn't on a polluter's payroll disagrees with you,

as chance so happens, i am a man of science...and i make my living on publishing articles...

so it shouldn't be too difficult to tell me the exact impact humans have on temp...can you tell me that?

if so, can you tell me if it's even a negative impact?

if so, can you tell me that there's anything we can do about it?

why isn't the public privy to this info?

as someone in academia, i know it doesn't take 1000 pages of bullshit to convince someone...it takes one power point slide...where is that slide?

hippiemom

Purple Hawk wrote:

as chance so happens, i am a man of science...and i make my living on publishing articles...

so it shouldn't be too difficult to tell me the exact impact humans have on temp...can you tell me that?

if so, can you tell me if it's even a negative impact?

if so, can you tell me that there's anything we can do about it?

why isn't the public privy to this info?

as someone in academia, i know it doesn't take 1000 pages of bullshit to convince someone...it takes one power point slide...where is that slide?

Nope, I can't tell you any of those things. Amongst the many things I am not is a scientist. As I do in most other fields, I rely on those who are experts when it comes to science. When an overwhelming majority of experts share an opinion, that does carry a good bit of weight with me.

I can argue this issue somewhat (not much, but somewhat) more effectively when I have a lot of documentation in front of me (my memory is shit these days), but I'm not terribly motivated to go look it all up. My only reason for entering this thread in the first place was to point out that Chrichton was babbling about irrelevancies ... and then of course I got a good laugh out of anyone having such a high opinion of the FDA. This essay convinced me that Chrichton is absolutely NOT someone I should rely on for information on this topic.

surferdude

A new expression needs to be coined and I saw the need for it when I was downtown today. The expression is "city hick". They don't own cars, have been next to know where, have no idea what's going on outside their urban core, yet think they are so smart because they spend Sunday afternoon quaffing lattes while reading the newspaper in Starbucks. They live in one of the greatest cities in the world, surrounded by mountains, the ocean and lush greenery and never get out in it, yet they think they no what the fuck they are talking about. City hicks, fuck are they ever annoying.

Jeanie

ClimberInOz wrote:

I agree that we are not going destroy the planet... but that we may well destroy ourselves.

Environmentalism is and should be an entirely selfish pursuit for the human race. We conserve resources because it is the way for us to survive, we protect rare species because it improves our quality of life to be able to go and oggle them and makes us feel like good people. Whatever our reasons, it ultimately comes down to looking after ourselves.

But that is by no means a justification to abolish the current environmental movement. I agree that there are fringes of the environmental movement that are lacking any connection to reality- but you will never avoid that.

The very fact that we can destroy ourselves, even if the world continues to tick over in our absence, is enough of a reason to be a passionate environmentalist.

Sorry climber, just a question. So you don't ever worry that the mining industry, nuclear testing and all that removal of oil and natural gas and a plethora of other stuff that we take from below the earth's surface, isn't going to impact on the planet? I mean in terms of the planet surviving?
Because I often wonder with the planet being made up of layers as it is, how removing things from below the surface in the quantities we do will interfere with the balance. How the planet will compensate for the removal of layers. And that's before I think about what nuclear devices do below the sea bed. Anyway, just wondering. Clearly not scientifically, but wondering just the same.

Rushlimbo

surferdude wrote:

A new expression needs to be coined and I saw the need for it when I was downtown today. The expression is "city hick". They don't own cars, have been next to know where, have no idea what's going on outside their urban core, yet think they are so smart because they spend Sunday afternoon quaffing lattes while reading the newspaper in Starbucks. They live in one of the greatest cities in the world, surrounded by mountains, the ocean and lush greenery and never get out in it, yet they think they no what the fuck they are talking about. City hicks, fuck are they ever annoying.

Term already taken

---

>

http://www.cityhick.com/

ClimberInOz

Jeanie wrote:

Sorry climber, just a question. So you don't ever worry that the mining industry, nuclear testing and all that removal of oil and natural gas and a plethora of other stuff that we take from below the earth's surface, isn't going to impact on the planet? I mean in terms of the planet surviving?
Because I often wonder with the planet being made up of layers as it is, how removing things from below the surface in the quantities we do will interfere with the balance. How the planet will compensate for the removal of layers. And that's before I think about what nuclear devices do below the sea bed. Anyway, just wondering. Clearly not scientifically, but wondering just the same.

It is a really interesting scenario imagining the world without us in it. I mean, do we really care what the planet is like after we are extinct, when we are not here to appreciate the beauty of life? I am not sure how to answer that...

The only scenario that I can envisage destroying the earth so that it cannot sustain any life is either through a major nuclear event (think the majority of the world's weapons going off simultaneously) or some form of natural disaster suchg as a major asteroid strike. Both are a possability- only one is preventable- but more of an issue of politics then everyday environmentalism.

When we do go, I can see us having taken down a lot of other species with us... but imagine that even after our departure the majority of the world's species will still be existing, none the wiser at our brief 'flash in the pan'.

Anyway- it is all a temporary concern. In approximately 2 billion years our galaxy is set to collide with Andromeda, and when those two heavyweights rip each other apart, that will be the end of the earth...

sponger

The American Auto Association (AAA) defines a good driver as a person who "has no impact on the driving of others".

That is, when we drive in a such a way that it violates the law, it almost usually affects the way the people around us have to drive.

And that's why environmentalism, for me, has never been about self preservation. It has not been about mortality rates. It has not been about controlling diseases or improving our quality of human life on this earth.

So, my vision of "Eden" has little to do with the author's vision. It has more to do with being a good driver. Regardless of how merciless nature has been, the results were always a balancing out of the scale through natural occurrences.

Yet, man's actions have undoubtedly created certain unnatural and unintended imbalances that I'm sure most people naturally find unsettling before factoring in how we personally are affected in our own little world.

And that is why environmentalism is not a religion as is described by the author. The author's assumption is that man's interest in environmentalism is based on the values self-preservation alone. Is is safe to assume that the author therefore has never experienced true empathy for living things other than humans?

surferdude

sponger wrote:

Yet, man's actions have undoubtedly created certain unnatural and unintended imbalances that I'm sure most people naturally find unsettling before factoring in how we personally are affected in our own little world.

Sounds like you fully and completely believe in God. In order for people to have created intended balances we must have been put here for a reason. Please explain this reason. Please explain how a product of evolution can create "unnatural and unintended imbalances"? People are a natural part of the world. We cannot do anything unnatural, it's inherently impossible for us to do so.

sponger

surferdude wrote:

Sounds like you fully and completely believe in God. In order for people to have created intended balances we must have been put here for a reason. Please explain this reason. Please explain how a product of evolution can create "unnatural and unintended imbalances"? People are a natural part of the world. We cannot do anything unnatural, it's inherently impossible for us to do so.

I didn't say people created intended balances. So, there goes that "people being put here for a reason".

Also, by "unintended", I'm referring to how people generally do not "intend" to upset ecosystems...etc. I am not implying that there exist intentions of a "higher power".


Lastly, the negative impacts that man has had on the environment are not a natural product of evolution.

Kann

So so article. It starts nicely with an interesting point in the begining. But then why does he ramble on the noble savages? We know tribes in diverse areas of the world were people not to fuck with. Violence is not something new. What does that have to do with environmental problems?
Then he destroys his whole "facts only please" arguments with his DDT ramblings. It's a shame because he has a point, the biggest problem with environment considerations are persistent assertions without any facts. Why does he do the same?
It's not really a good article, though he does have a point. But it doesn't change anything because :

sponger wrote:

And that's why environmentalism, for me, has never been about self preservation. It has not been about mortality rates. It has not been about controlling diseases or improving our quality of human life on this earth.

This is a very very good point.

surferdude wrote:

Please explain this reason. Please explain how a product of evolution can create "unnatural and unintended imbalances"?

By leaving our ecosystem. Every other animal on this planet is part of one, not us. We also left evolution, we basically left behind us all the pressure nature forces on living organisms in this planet. Without this pressure how can we not create unnatural (we are no longer submitted to the will of nature) imbalances?

catefrances

ClimberInOz wrote:

It is a really interesting scenario imagining the world without us in it. I mean, do we really care what the planet is like after we are extinct, when we are not here to appreciate the beauty of life? I am not sure how to answer that...

no we dont give a shit about what the world will be like once we are extinct. why would we?

oh and jeanie, are you aware that michael crichton graduated from medical school. and that after graduating from harvard he studied at the salk institute for biological studies. i am not saying that because of his medical training and post graduate work that he should be untouchable and not open to some amount of scepticism, i just think that perhaps you are dismissing him purely based on his works of fiction and his populist style of prose.

polaris

environmentalism should be a conservative trait ... i mean conservatives love to talk about how they want everyone to be responsible for their own actions yet this is one thing that is exempt ...

anyways - i am an environmentalist and if someone wants to call it a religion so be it ... and with anything - no one can control who adopts what philosophies ... i'm sure not all christians are happy with everyone else ...

gue_barium

I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth, last night. Best movie I've seen all year.