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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
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.
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 :
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.
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?
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.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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 ...
And no, it is NOT possible that we can alter the planet in such a way it becomes incapable of supporting human life.
Are you serious? Don't you think THAT statement right there is 'faith' based as well? I think it's incredibly naive to make such an absolute statement like that.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
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.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
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.
...
Here's my take on Environmentalism. It isn't about 'Saving the Planet', such as 'Saving the Soul' that religions preach. It's about making your life a little nicer and leaving the place a little nicer for the next person. I don't toss trash out my car window on the freeway for convenience. Also, you may argue, but I don't like breating in exhaust fumes or drinking water laced with DDT.
I don't see anything wrong with making the place a little nicer... a little cleaner.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
- The environmental movement has caused 20-30 million deaths in 30 years?!?! Ok, proof!!! Oh wait, he demands scientific evidence for everything, yet provides zero in his argument.
- DDT? He says that it was a grave mistake to ban it and that environmentalists should be ashamed, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt Where's HIS evidence that says it's 100% clean, effective and safe???? Last I checked, there was still plenty of controversy surrounding its health effects. Call me stupid, but I'll err on the side of prudence when it comes to spraying chemicals all over the place. There are other effective ways to combat malaria. :rolleyes:
- His whole rant on tribal societies...are you kidding me??? Wtf does that have to do with the environment? He acts like people don't understand how harsh nature is. Please. What, anyone who wants a clean environment is a 10 year old? Give me a fucking break. Yes, humans fight. Animals fight. Nature is full of conflict. Humans decided to break away and circumvent Mother Nature/God/whatever. We took it upon ourselves to plant crops and ruin the soil, kill ALL the insects, kill ALL the wolves, hunt ALL the whales, etc etc, etc on a worldwide scale. It was never like that when we were in tribal societies. It is the worldwide scale of things that is hurting our ecosystem, and slowly seperating us from it.
Read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael .. check out his question/answer section http://www.ishmael.com/welcome.cfm for some profound insight on environmentalism, tribal societies and the human impact. It's not about killing bunnies and peaceful Indians. It's about how we are destroying OUR habitat. The world will go on, yes, any idiot knows that.
There are plenty of studies and arguments out there about human-impacted climate change. The majority of scientists have come to a consensus on this. A minority of scientists dispute our involvement in this phenomena, but most of them agree that climate change is occurring. A very, very small minority dispute all of it, completely. I have seen a list of most of them and who funds their research. Not a difficult guess what sector they come from.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
- DDT? He says that it was a grave mistake to ban it and that environmentalists should be ashamed, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt Where's HIS evidence that says it's 100% clean, effective and safe???? Last I checked, there was still plenty of controversy surrounding its health effects. Call me stupid, but I'll err on the side of prudence when it comes to spraying chemicals all over the place. There are other effective ways to combat malaria. :rolleyes:
Banning DDt in developpig has caused way more death than prevented potential harm. DDT was and still is the best imperfect solution we have.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
this is great news....DDT, lead paint, and pollution for ALL!!! It's just a matter of faith...and if you believe pollution is good, then it won't harm you....
this is great news....DDT, lead paint, and pollution for ALL!!! It's just a matter of faith...and if you believe pollution is good, then it won't harm you....
this is great news....DDT, lead paint, and pollution for ALL!!! It's just a matter of faith...and if you believe pollution is good, then it won't harm you....
Grow up and get educated. It's specifically about the use of DDT in AFrica to save lives and prevent the spread of malaria. The same malaria that has had a far more devastating effect than DDT could ever dream of having or ever did have. Sometimes it's about the lessor of two evils. If you can't take the time to educate yourself on the subject why pespond.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Grow up and get educated. It's specifically about the use of DDT in AFrica to save lives and prevent the spread of malaria. The same malaria that has had a far more devastating effect than DDT could ever dream of having or ever did have. Sometimes it's about the lessor of two evils. If you can't take the time to educate yourself on the subject why pespond.
a non-believa...!!
I'm a agree-in with ya...DDT is a good a....I'm having some for a dinner a...
Grow up and get educated. It's specifically about the use of DDT in AFrica to save lives and prevent the spread of malaria. The same malaria that has had a far more devastating effect than DDT could ever dream of having or ever did have. Sometimes it's about the lessor of two evils. If you can't take the time to educate yourself on the subject why pespond.
Don't bother people with facts, man. Many lefties on this board are much more interested in snide responses, such as these people.
Crichton is right on in a lot of what he says, and I'm glad at least some people have noticed it.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
Don't bother people with facts, man. Many lefties on this board are much more interested in snide responses, such as these people.
Crichton is right on in a lot of what he says, and I'm glad at least some people have noticed it.
How are those responses snide? Crichton himself calls environmentalism a religion -- it looks like preaching it as religious wackos do is the next logical step. Amen my christian soldiers !
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Let's see proof from the people who support the banning of what was a very effective tool in fighting malaria. I'mnot here to do research for the lazy.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth, last night. Best movie I've seen all year.
Last night? .....what are you an inmate or do you live in the projects and finally got loaned the neighborhood TV and VCR or something?
I'm waiting for the part 2 noah's ark version...with gore in a yellow ducky suit...
btw...yes it was a good movie.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
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...
I guess asteroid strike or galaxies colliding are things out of our control at this point. But seemingly in the meantime we do have a responsibility to protect our home. And I believe we do have a responsibility to use less, consume less and to leave the planet in a more healthy condition that we have done in the last 100 or so years. Who knows what will happen? I'll probably be dead long before the end of the earth, but I'm still going to do everything I can to lessen my footprint.
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.
Yep, thanks cate, read that somewhere about him, but yours is a timely reminder.
And now that I have been reminded I must say that his article truly sucks.
Comments
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.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Term already taken
>
http://www.cityhick.com/
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
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...
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?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
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.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
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 :
This is a very very good point.
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?
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.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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 ...
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Are you serious? Don't you think THAT statement right there is 'faith' based as well? I think it's incredibly naive to make such an absolute statement like that.
nowadays hits you when you're young
Contradicted your earlier post.....
nowadays hits you when you're young
Here's my take on Environmentalism. It isn't about 'Saving the Planet', such as 'Saving the Soul' that religions preach. It's about making your life a little nicer and leaving the place a little nicer for the next person. I don't toss trash out my car window on the freeway for convenience. Also, you may argue, but I don't like breating in exhaust fumes or drinking water laced with DDT.
I don't see anything wrong with making the place a little nicer... a little cleaner.
Hail, Hail!!!
- The environmental movement has caused 20-30 million deaths in 30 years?!?! Ok, proof!!! Oh wait, he demands scientific evidence for everything, yet provides zero in his argument.
- DDT? He says that it was a grave mistake to ban it and that environmentalists should be ashamed, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt Where's HIS evidence that says it's 100% clean, effective and safe???? Last I checked, there was still plenty of controversy surrounding its health effects. Call me stupid, but I'll err on the side of prudence when it comes to spraying chemicals all over the place. There are other effective ways to combat malaria. :rolleyes:
- His whole rant on tribal societies...are you kidding me??? Wtf does that have to do with the environment? He acts like people don't understand how harsh nature is. Please. What, anyone who wants a clean environment is a 10 year old? Give me a fucking break. Yes, humans fight. Animals fight. Nature is full of conflict. Humans decided to break away and circumvent Mother Nature/God/whatever. We took it upon ourselves to plant crops and ruin the soil, kill ALL the insects, kill ALL the wolves, hunt ALL the whales, etc etc, etc on a worldwide scale. It was never like that when we were in tribal societies. It is the worldwide scale of things that is hurting our ecosystem, and slowly seperating us from it.
Read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael .. check out his question/answer section http://www.ishmael.com/welcome.cfm for some profound insight on environmentalism, tribal societies and the human impact. It's not about killing bunnies and peaceful Indians. It's about how we are destroying OUR habitat. The world will go on, yes, any idiot knows that.
There are plenty of studies and arguments out there about human-impacted climate change. The majority of scientists have come to a consensus on this. A minority of scientists dispute our involvement in this phenomena, but most of them agree that climate change is occurring. A very, very small minority dispute all of it, completely. I have seen a list of most of them and who funds their research. Not a difficult guess what sector they come from.
nowadays hits you when you're young
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
myth ... it's been debunked many times on this board ...
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I've got one Amen...canna get another...!!! wooo hooo...
pollution will save your soul...an a, DDT will save yo life...
you gots to believe...let that pollution rain upon thee...
hallelujah..!!!!
the spirtit is-ah with me
let us pray-ah
for acid rain-ah
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
a non-believa...!!
I'm a agree-in with ya...DDT is a good a....I'm having some for a dinner a...
And I'll prepond when I a wanna prespond a....!!!
Don't bother people with facts, man. Many lefties on this board are much more interested in snide responses, such as these people.
Crichton is right on in a lot of what he says, and I'm glad at least some people have noticed it.
How are those responses snide? Crichton himself calls environmentalism a religion -- it looks like preaching it as religious wackos do is the next logical step. Amen my christian soldiers !
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Show me the proof that DDT is completely harmless and does not cause any disease/cancer. Show me these all mighty facts of yours. Irrefutable proof.
nowadays hits you when you're young
Proof. Or is it more blind faith? :rolleyes:
nowadays hits you when you're young
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Last night? .....what are you an inmate or do you live in the projects and finally got loaned the neighborhood TV and VCR or something?
I'm waiting for the part 2 noah's ark version...with gore in a yellow ducky suit...
btw...yes it was a good movie.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I guess asteroid strike or galaxies colliding are things out of our control at this point. But seemingly in the meantime we do have a responsibility to protect our home. And I believe we do have a responsibility to use less, consume less and to leave the planet in a more healthy condition that we have done in the last 100 or so years. Who knows what will happen? I'll probably be dead long before the end of the earth, but I'm still going to do everything I can to lessen my footprint.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Yep, thanks cate, read that somewhere about him, but yours is a timely reminder.
And now that I have been reminded I must say that his article truly sucks.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift