Environmentalism

[Rewban]

Environmentalism has become a very trendy fad in this day and age, and I think that the general motivation of the movement is flawed. People say that they are doing what is right for the environment. However, the planet has been in existence long before humans came to be, and it seemed to get along just fine. We have decided what is right and wrong for something that we cannot live without but can certainly live without us, and we act upon it accordingly.

To me, environmentalism seems to be motivated subconsciously by human preservation. Many species of birds, dogs, and other such animals are not that harmed by ultraviolet light, and some species of insect even thrive off of it, but the eco-conscious are up in arms when we are putting a hole in the ozone layer. Why so? The earth, which has been here for billions of years (generally agreed upon) has gotten along fine through extreme changes to it's environment. We only wish to keep it as it is, we only label it as the "correct" environment because it is so far proven to be the best environment for humans. The environment is constantly changing, and it has been since the beginning of time. It is mind-boggling to imagine the amount of ego that comes with thinking that the billions of years of the earths evolving environment has come to a standstill just so humans can live.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in recycling and things as such. Recycling keeps prices down, and preserving our ozone layer elongates human survival. Which I am completely for. I do not think that we can live indefinitely on this planet. It takes an amount of conceit I cannot comprehend to think that we can bend this planet's environment to our will to the point that we can exist as long as we desire. However, it would be nice knowing that we worked our hardest.

If we were to completely destroy ourselves (and that seems to be the direction we're heading) and vanish completely from the earth, the earth would survive just fine without us, thank you very much. We haven't been here for a blink in the earth's lifespan, and we have the complete narcissism to believe that we are "destroying our planet." It scares me to think that some people are so conceited.

[the_aphid]

Environmentalism has become a very trendy fad in this day and age, and I think that the general motivation of the movement is flawed.
...
To me, environmentalism seems to be motivated subconsciously by human preservation.
...
We only wish to keep it as it is, we only label it as the "correct" environment because it is so far proven to be the best environment for humans. The environment is constantly changing, and it has been since the beginning of time. It is mind-boggling to imagine the amount of ego that comes with thinking that the billions of years of the earths evolving environment has come to a standstill just so humans can live.
Well Rewban, you seem to be addressing a common-held misunderstanding of what 'Environmentalism' - or Natural Resource Conservation - is truly about. Like any 'mass movement' it is inevitable that people essentially 'jump on the band-wagon' and completely overlook the moral motivation of such movements. Environmentalism is not about 'bending our environment to our will', but rather it is a Philosophy about encouraging awareness and reducing the negative and destructive impact our species has on the planet. It is not about 'resisting change', most certainly any thoughtful Environmentalist acknowledges the fact that environment is constantly changing and has been since the dawn of the Earth, but Environmentalism is about encouraging a symbiotic relationship with the environment in which we have evolved.

The evidence is more than abundant. The human species consumes resources thoughtlessly, pollutes the surroundings in which those resources are obtained, and alters landscapes eradicating species by the millions. This is the behavior which fuels the desire for change upon which Environmentalism is based. Environmentalism does not suggest we stop consuming resources - obviously human life depends on consuming resources - it simply insists that we become consume those resources mindfully.
We haven't been here for a blink in the earth's lifespan, and we have the complete narcissism to believe that we are "destroying our planet." It scares me to think that some people are so conceited.That phrase, "destroying our planet", certainly does allow for misinterpretation. Firstly, it can be interpreted that 'our planet' means that we are in possession of the planet, that we own it, entirely neglecting the fact that the planet does not 'belong to' any of the organism that depend on it, and each other, for survival. Secondly, the word 'destroying' seems to suggest that we are 'damaging' or 'killing' the planet and it's inherent ability to foster the existence of life. As you have mentioned this is also untrue as life adapts to change, and life will continue to exist despite what 'alterations' which might result from our existence. However, if you take that to mean that we are 'destroying' the ecological ties to 'the planet' on which we depend, I don't see it as very narcissistic at all.

And while it is true that the Environmentalism movement does result in a degree of conceitedness among some of its 'followers', I think it is better than the alternative of simple ignorance and denial, which is equally popular amongst vast majorities of people including the White House - nytimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin), washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062502713.html)

[MoonDog]

The earth will be here no matter what we do. But in what condition? That we have power over.
If you think that in the near future the 10 billion plus population of earth will not have significant impact then I believe you need to take another look at what just a quarter to a half of that achieved in less than a hundred years of industrialisation.

Anyway, regardless of what you think of facts and figures, data and demonstrations. Since we live in a bubble in a vacuum, isn't it prudent not to poison that bubble, even a little bit? Isn't it also wise not to squander finite resources, no matter how vast they seem, until we prove we can replace them?

And isn't it selfish to destroy what is here in this little window of history for our own greed, without regard to the voiceless future generations?

Desire is what fuels the ills of the world. And arguments against conservation are generally for the same reason.

[Rewban]

Well Rewban, you seem to be addressing a common-held misunderstanding of what 'Environmentalism' - or Natural Resource Conservation - is truly about. Like any 'mass movement' it is inevitable that people essentially 'jump on the band-wagon' and completely overlook the moral motivation of such movements. Environmentalism is not about 'bending our environment to our will', but rather it is a Philosophy about encouraging awareness and reducing the negative and destructive impact our species has on the planet. It is not about 'resisting change', most certainly any thoughtful Environmentalist acknowledges the fact that environment is constantly changing and has been since the dawn of the Earth, but Environmentalism is about encouraging a symbiotic relationship with the environment in which we have evolved.


Since you acknowledge that our environment is constantly changing, the more sensible route to "encourage a symbiotic relationship" would be to adapt with it. We should not force ourselves to change our ways to keep the environment the way it is, but to change our ways to ensure our human survival for an extended period of time. This IS what we are doing. However, most environmentalists see it as the former, not the latter. I am for what the environmental movement has brought, I am simply saying that it is mislabeled in it's motivation and intention. As you say, "Environmentalism is about encouraging a symbiotic relationship with the environment in which we have evolved," the key point being the environment in which WE have evolved. The only ones that need to establish the symbiotic relationship are the humans, so that we may survive for as long as possible; the earth couldn't care less about us.

Also, to MoonDog, the earth has survived all sorts of disasters on a global scale. Ice ages, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, magnetic reversal of the poles, earthquakes, volcanoes, meteor impacts, etc. Yet humans think that we have a significant impact on the environment because we've been in the industrial age for not even two-hundred years. That is pure conceit.

[the_aphid]

Since you acknowledge that our environment is constantly changing, the more sensible route to "encourage a symbiotic relationship" would be to adapt with it.And how else can humankind 'adapt' besides changing their behavior?We should not force ourselves to change our ways to keep the environment the way it is, but to change our ways to ensure our human survival for an extended period of time. This IS what we are doing. However, most environmentalists see it as the former, not the latter.So essentially you feel that 'most environmentalists' see the movement as a means of 'environmental control'? That they desire to put the environment in a sort of 'stasis', halting long-term environmental change and evolution? I have to disagree that 'most Environmentalists' see it that way, as anyone who understands anything about evolution or the environment realizes that any such effort would be fruitless. I do not disagree that perhaps many quoted "Environmentalists" are really adopting the movement under false pretenses, such as the societal elitism that goes along with 'buying organic' and 'driving a hybrid'.I am for what the environmental movement has brought, I am simply saying that it is mislabeled in it's motivation and intention.Once again, I have to disagree. The 'movement' or the 'philosophy' is not mislabeled at all, it is just that many people are misinterpreting the true motivation and intention of the movement. If you speak to professionals in the field of ecological conservation for example, they are all aware of the underlying fact that there is a deviation between a 'background extinction rate' and an 'observed extinction rate', the difference between them being the extinction rate due to human impact. Truly no knowledgeable person would claim that humans are responsible for the extinction of every species that has gone extinct in our presence, but sometimes the lines are blurred. I mean is the endangerment of the Polar Bear due to human hunting, or climatic change, or both? Even if humans entirely stopped hunting Polar Bears, would they survive? More directly related to Environmentalism is that sticky issue of climatic change, or 'Global Warming', which is very hotly debated nowadays. Are humans activities responsible for the receding arctic ice sheets, acidification of the oceans, and contamination of rivers with mercury? There is a reason why environmentalists spend the time trying to find the answers to these questions, and that is because it is important that we discern exactly what effects are caused by human activities, because those are the impacts that we can change by deviation of behavior. If it was found that global warming was entirely due to increased solar activity or increased volcanic activity, than those environmentalists would not be pleading for a drastic change in carbon emissions.Ice ages, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, magnetic reversal of the poles, earthquakes, volcanoes, meteor impacts, etc. Yet humans think that we have a significant impact on the environment because we've been in the industrial age for not even two-hundred years. That is pure conceit.It is not conceit, it is simply the rational and natural truth. We do have an impact on the environment, and it is significant, to deny it is simply ignorant. We are facing the sixth mass extinction, and unlike previous mass extinctions which were caused by asteroidal impacts or the eruption of supervolcanoes, this mass extinction is fueled by human activity. MoonDog simply seems to be pointing out the fact that the future is not predetermined, and that we have some degree of choice in how the environment changes and what state will exist in the future. Furthermore, he points out ethical implications of thoughtlessly satisfying the present populations' desires at the cost of future generations.

[Vlatko]

Well, I agree totally with you Rewban. The processes that took place in the last 4,5 billion years and that will take place in the future are so massive and effective and if we compare them with whatsoever human activity it looks absurd. Or if we compare the time that people spent being on the Earth with the age of the Earth again sounds fanny. We are totally insignificant and our activities on Earth are totally meaningless. The scale of our activities is very minimal compared to the natural ones. Further more since we are "Earth products" whatever we do it will be natural. Whether we are environmentalist or not it is the same.

"Throughout the Earth's history continents slide about and bang together at a clip that seems positively reckless. Mountains rise and melt away, ocean basins come and go, ice sheets advance and withdraw. And throughout the whole, very frequently, somewhere on the planet there is a flesh-bulb pop of light marking the impact of a Manson-sized meteor or even larger. It’s a wonder that anything at all can survive in such a pummeled and unsettled environment. In fact, not many things do for long."

The problem here is the fear of death. Like the individual is afraid of death, the collective is also afraid of collective death. Hence the activities to preserve ourselves.

Let say if we rich to a level where we are totally aware and carrying for the environment. Everybody is satisfied and one day the Earth is wiped out with an impact of a meteor. Than what? All that we did will be for nothing. For sure in the future there will be a changes on a big scale where most of the species will be eradicated. Than what? What will environmentalists do?

Cheers, Vlatko

[Taeguk]

We are totally insignificant and our activities on Earth are totally meaningless. The scale of our activities is very minimal compared to the natural ones.

Further more since we are "Earth products" whatever we do it will be natural. Whether we are environmentalist or not it is the same.


In one statement you want to claim a distinction between "our activities" and "the natural ones". In the next, you are claiming that "everything we do is natural." Which is it, Vlatko?

Secondly, while it is true that we are a new species and short-lived compared to the earth, this has absolutely no bearing on meaning or significance. Age and size have little bearing on meaning. Are fat people "more significant" than thin people because they are larger and take up more mass? Are older people "more signficant" than younger people because they have been here longer?

Human beings are part of a whole, a web of interdependence. The parts effect the whole, and the whole effects the parts. We do effect the earth, and the earth in turn effects us. It is the same with every other species on this planet. Regardless of how long we have been here, we do have an effect, with is just as significant as anything else.

Third, you are completely abusing the term "natural". Under your definition, natural applies to any and all human behavior---which means the word is effectively meaningless. Under this definition, it's redundant to claim that a human being "behaves naturally" because for a human being "to behave" is for them to behave naturally, regardless of their behavior.

As I said, this is really destroying the meaning of the word, but whatever. Let's just go with this definition. While all of our actions might be "natural", that hardly makes them "all the same." If Bangladesh is totally submerged under water, this is quite different for the inhabitants of Bangladesh and the world than if Bangladesh is not submerged under water----even if, according to your definition, both are "natural".

Speaking for myself, if actions that cause suffering and actions that prevent suffering are both "natural", then I will take the natural course of action that aleviates suffering. That is what environmentalists are doing.

The problem here is the fear of death. Like the individual is afraid of death, the collective is also afraid of collective death. Hence the activities to preserve ourselves.
Let say if we rich to a level where we are totally aware and carrying for the environment. Everybody is satisfied and one day the Earth is wiped out with an impact of a meteor. Than what? All that we did will be for nothing. For sure in the future there will be a changes on a big scale where most of the species will be eradicated. Than what? What will environmentalists do?

This is a complete non-sequitur. Environmentalists are not immortalists; they are not claiming that we can live forever. They are claiming that our lives will be healthier and happier if we are in greater harmony with our surroundings, that we will be able to enjoy a greater diversity on this planet if we take care of it. That's all. If a meteor hits, a meteor hits. We have no control over that, and we should accept it. However, we do have control over our own actions and our own impact on the environment, and that's something we should alter for the sake of greater peace and harmony.

[Vlatko]

In one statement you want to claim a distinction between "our activities" and "the natural ones". In the next, you are claiming that "everything we do is natural." Which is it, Vlatko?

If your opinion is that our activities are not natural than take the first one, but if your opinion is that every our activity is natural than the second one is for you. Help yourself. Which one is it Tageuk?

Secondly, while it is true that we are a new species and short-lived compared to the earth, this has absolutely no bearing on meaning or significance. Age and size have little bearing on meaning.

I think that there is a meaning in the duration and intensity of the impact on the environment. The Earth through million of years was exposed to massive radiation, extreme temperature variations, enormous emission of gases, etc. Beside all those things life spawned and existed and still exists. What I'm saying is that if you compare the intensity and duration of all those non-human influences with the human ones you will easily realize that what humans momentary do is totally insignificant for the mother Earth. Human activities are million times weaker than the non-human influences, thus they will make very small difference. Even if they do some difference the Earth, Solar System or the universe has a great power of recycling.

Speaking for myself, if actions that cause suffering and actions that prevent suffering are both "natural", then I will take the natural course of action that aleviates suffering. That is what environmentalists are doing.

The problem here is that you believe that we are greatly contributing for the changes of our environment. People are scared that the emission of human-produced gases, the deforestation of the soil is putting in place green house effect and because of that we have temperature rising, ice caps melting, see level rising and eventually Bangladesh will be underwater. Non-sense.

Ok, let presume that we have such a great impact on the environment like environmentalists claim. What should we do? We should stop using oil, coal, gas and all fuels that can pollute the environment and accordingly we should switch to alternate sources of power like sun, hydrogen, etc. We should stop producing things that can harm the ozone layer, we should stop deforesting the land and so on and so on.

That means that the progress of 70% of the countries in the world should be stopped. We should stop using cars, plains, spaceships. We should cripple technology and science or in the other words we should slow down the pace.

Here is one analogy. If you observe the ants you'll see that they are working very hard through all of the day. They do everything in their power to build places to live, to take care for the offspring, bring food, defend the home from enemies etc. To accomplish that they are using the Earth in every sense. They are eating leaves from the trees, they are using the sand to built their houses and so on.

Lets imagine that one day one smart ant stopped working and said: What are we doing? We are destroying the trees, polluting the soil and the water with our garbage. We should stop this non-sense. Some of the ants believed what the smart ant said some of them thought that this ant went crazy. They were asking themselves how can our activities be harmful for the mother Earth. If we try to obey the smart ant we should stop leaving and we should stop be ants.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Rewban]

Once again, I have to disagree. The 'movement' or the 'philosophy' is not mislabeled at all, it is just that many people are misinterpreting the true motivation and intention of the movement. If you speak to professionals in the field of ecological conservation for example, they are all aware of the underlying fact that there is a deviation between a 'background extinction rate' and an 'observed extinction rate', the difference between them being the extinction rate due to human impact. Truly no knowledgeable person would claim that humans are responsible for the extinction of every species that has gone extinct in our presence, but sometimes the lines are blurred. I mean is the endangerment of the Polar Bear due to human hunting, or climatic change, or both? Even if humans entirely stopped hunting Polar Bears, would they survive? More directly related to Environmentalism is that sticky issue of climatic change, or 'Global Warming', which is very hotly debated nowadays. Are humans activities responsible for the receding arctic ice sheets, acidification of the oceans, and contamination of rivers with mercury? There is a reason why environmentalists spend the time trying to find the answers to these questions, and that is because it is important that we discern exactly what effects are caused by human activities, because those are the impacts that we can change by deviation of behavior. If it was found that global warming was entirely due to increased solar activity or increased volcanic activity, than those environmentalists would not be pleading for a drastic change in carbon emissions.

---------

It is not conceit, it is simply the rational and natural truth. We do have an impact on the environment, and it is significant, to deny it is simply ignorant. We are facing the sixth mass extinction, and unlike previous mass extinctions which were caused by asteroidal impacts or the eruption of supervolcanoes, this mass extinction is fueled by human activity. MoonDog simply seems to be pointing out the fact that the future is not predetermined, and that we have some degree of choice in how the environment changes and what state will exist in the future. Furthermore, he points out ethical implications of thoughtlessly satisfying the present populations' desires at the cost of future generations.

What of the environment after humankind's inevitable extinction? I hear no call about that from any environmentalist. However, if you throw in the phrase "future generations," we'll get right on it. From what anyone says to me that is eco-pro, it always has the underlying message of human preservation.

Also, you say that we have a significant impact because we are facing a sixth mass-extinction. Influenza will make the human body unwilling to get out of bed, dull the appetite, dull the senses, and generally wreak havoc on the immune system for about a week, and then it's gone. The body adapts back to it's normal state. To quote the late George Carlin, "the planet isn't going anywhere; WE ARE."

[schrodinger]

Well, I agree totally with you Rewban. The processes that took place in the last 4,5 billion years and that will take place in the future are so massive and effective and if we compare them with whatsoever human activity it looks absurd. Or if we compare the time that people spent being on the Earth with the age of the Earth again sounds fanny. We are totally insignificant and our activities on Earth are totally meaningless. The scale of our activities is very minimal compared to the natural ones. Further more since we are "Earth products" whatever we do it will be natural. Whether we are environmentalist or not it is the same.—Vlatko--

Although I am a critic of the Al Gore “Global Warming” crowd, I cannot agree that man’s impact on the environment will always be “minimal”. I think it is wrong to assume that all our actions are “natural” just because we ourselves are products of nature. Or are we? We are neither beasts nor Gods, but something in between and we are unique on this planet in that we can have effects on our environment that are far greater than our “insignificant” presence might indicate. Our enormous intellectual capability, which allows us to harness and exploit the forces of nature, should also be focused on not destroying the delicate balance of nature on which we all depend.

The problem here is the fear of death. Like the individual is afraid of death, the collective is also afraid of collective death. Hence the activities to preserve ourselves.—Vlatko--

Is that really a “problem”? Since when has self-preservation become an undesirable trait?

Let say if we rich to a level where we are totally aware and carrying for the environment. Everybody is satisfied and one day the Earth is wiped out with an impact of a meteor. Than what? All that we did will be for nothing. For sure in the future there will be changes on a big scale where most of the species will be eradicated. Than what? What will environmentalists do?—Vlatko--

You and I and everyone else who is alive today will be dead in the future. Is that a reason to stop all beneficial activities such as health care, hygiene, exercise, intellectual pursuits, etc.? The ideal is to live a quality life while we are here and leave behind a habitable planet for our future generations. That seems fair and reasonable to me.

[Taeguk]

The problem here is that you believe that we are greatly contributing for the changes of our environment. People are scared that the emission of human-produced gases, the deforestation of the soil is putting in place green house effect and because of that we have temperature rising, ice caps melting, see level rising and eventually Bangladesh will be underwater. Non-sense.

Do you have some figures, studies, statistics, etc, to back up your conclusion, i.e. that the claim that human beings contribute to environmental change is "nonsense"?

That means that the progress of 70% of the countries in the world should be stopped. We should stop using cars, plains, spaceships. We should cripple technology and science or in the other words we should slow down the pace.

Complete non-sequitor. Nobody is saying we should "cripple technology and science." On the contrary, by definition finding viable alternative technologies will require an increased amount of effort and resources in science.

Here is one analogy. If you observe the ants you'll see that they are working very hard through all of the day. They do everything in their power to build places to live, to take care for the offspring, bring food, defend the home from enemies etc. To accomplish that they are using the Earth in every sense. They are eating leaves from the trees, they are using the sand to built their houses and so on....


You cannot meaningfully compare the activities of human beings to acitivities of some hypothetical ants you seem to have dragged out of Aesop's Fables. The question is not whether not we should "stop relying on the earth". Obviously, we will always rely on the earth. The question is how we rely upon it, whether responsibly or irresponsibly, and the consequences of our actions.

[the_aphid]

We are totally insignificant and our activities on Earth are totally meaningless. The scale of our activities is very minimal compared to the natural ones. Further more since we are "Earth products" whatever we do it will be natural. Whether we are environmentalist or not it is the same.
...
If your opinion is that our activities are not natural than take the first one, but if your opinion is that every our activity is natural than the second one is for you. Help yourself. Which one is it Tageuk?:think: So you are requesting that Taeguk make your arguments for you Vlatko? I have to admit, it seems very strange for you to suggest (and simultaneously contradict) that "whatever we do will be natural", considering that mere months ago your whole argument against homosexual behavior was that it was "unnatural".

The haphazard use of the term "natural" was already addressed in the Why Celibacy? (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3246) thread, and just because some behavior or act can be considered as "natural" does not mean that it is beneficial. Thus the whole reason that you cannot effectively argue that one course of action is good/bad because it is natural/unnatural, this argument simply doesn't hold any water. I have already made my opinion clear that I can think of no behavior or action that could adequately be described as "unnatural" because each and every action and behavior arises from the natural world, natural selection, a natural existence. However, just because something is "natural" does not mean that it can not be detrimental and something to be avoided.
What I'm saying is that if you compare the intensity and duration of all those non-human influences with the human ones you will easily realize that what humans momentary do is totally insignificant for the mother Earth. Human activities are million times weaker than the non-human influences, thus they will make very small difference. Even if they do some difference the Earth, Solar System or the universe has a great power of recycling.This isn't some sort of contest Vlatko, nitpicking and judging 'which force is more powerful than another'. Obviously a single asteroid of an adequate size is capable of changing the face and future of the earth in an instant, but then again so would a simultaneous launch of all the man-made nuclear weapons on the planet. What we are talking about is activities which are capable of altering the state of life. Deforestation while perhaps much 'weaker' than supervolcanoes, will still have an impact on the environment, to argue against that is to argue against readily documented empirical evidence. It is simply a fact. Eradication of ecosystems causes eradication of species, it diminishes biodiversity, and as you kill off integral members of the biological web of dependence, then things collapse and drastic adaptations are required for survival. And yes, most likely things will survive and repopulate the earth with a new, rich web of biodiversity given enough time, but that is not the point being contested by environmentalists. The point being contested is that by adopting more sustainable and less taxing behaviors, the human species can reduce the negative impact they are having on the whole. That we can tread lightly on the face of the planet and minimize the changes we are currently influencing. And yes, this likely means sacrificing some of the 'freedoms' that humankind has thoughtlessly assumed they deserved. It means we can't eat limitless portions of food, and waste materials whenever we are 'too lazy' to do otherwise. It requires a commitment and a change in lifestyle, that much is true, but it doesn't mean the world, the industries, the economies, have to come to a stand-still in order to pull it off.Lets imagine that one day one smart ant stopped working and said: What are we doing? We are destroying the trees, polluting the soil and the water with our garbage. We should stop this non-sense. Some of the ants believed what the smart ant said some of them thought that this ant went crazy. They were asking themselves how can our activities be harmful for the mother Earth. If we try to obey the smart ant we should stop leaving and we should stop be ants.Right...That's an apt analogy, environmentalists are suggesting that we 'stop being human'.:rolleyes:
What of the environment after humankind's inevitable extinction? I hear no call about that from any environmentalist. However, if you throw in the phrase "future generations," we'll get right on it. From what anyone says to me that is eco-pro, it always has the underlying message of human preservation.Alright...I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here. As Schrodinger said, what is wrong with self-preservation? You don't hear environmentalists arguing about the state of the earth after our extinction? That is because such an argument would be illogical. Why would you argue about what 'state' your house was kept in after you died. What person would state in their will; "And upon my death, I want my apartment to be vacuumed once a week and kept as it was during my life."

But I think I understand what you are trying to imply, that the motive for preservation of the ecosystem, in turn for preservation of humanity, is ultimately selfish. And with that I disagree. Because by encouraging a sustainable existence from humankind we will not only be preserving our species in perhaps the best possible state of existence as long as the universe permits, but also millions of other species simultaneously. We will not be preventing the process of natural selection and evolution of those species through time, we will simply be limiting the amount of influence we direct upon it. For example, the use of antibacterial soaps is a perfect example of 'artificial selection'. This is because nothing in the environment is encouraging microbial life to become resistant to particular chemicals, only humans are. And once again, I am not suggesting that humans 'stop' influencing life upon the planet altogether, obviously as living beings part of that web of biodiversity, influence upon other species is inevitable. All I am suggesting is that we minimize the influence, minimize the destructive, curb the consumption, et cetera...
Also, you say that we have a significant impact because we are facing a sixth mass-extinction. Influenza will make the human body unwilling to get out of bed, dull the appetite, dull the senses, and generally wreak havoc on the immune system for about a week, and then it's gone. The body adapts back to it's normal state. To quote the late George Carlin, "the planet isn't going anywhere; WE ARE."Once again, I don't understand the point you are attempting to make. Eradicating thousands of species a day from existence is alright because new species will eventually take their place? That is your logic here? And don't get me wrong, I love George Carlin, and I don't disagree with his statement, but I don't see what it has to do within this discussion of "Environmentalism". I have already stated it a number of times, Environmentalists aren't claiming that human activities are "killing the earth", as if the earth was a living being capable of absolute death. So why contest an argument which isn't being made?

[Vlatko]

Do you have some figures, studies, statistics, etc, to back up your conclusion, i.e. that the claim that human beings contribute to environmental change is "nonsense"?

No, I don't have. Not that they don't exist, but I'm to lazy to find them. What about you? Do you have some proof that environmental change caused by humans makes "sense"?

Complete non-sequitor. Nobody is saying we should "cripple technology and science." On the contrary, by definition finding viable alternative technologies will require an increased amount of effort and resources in science.

Yes you're not saying but you're implying. Again, 70% of the world just started do develop. With what do you expect those nations do develop. They need fuel, and they simply need to pollute.

You cannot meaningfully compare the activities of human beings to acitivities of some hypothetical ants you seem to have dragged out of Aesop's Fables. The question is not whether not we should "stop relying on the earth". Obviously, we will always rely on the earth. The question is how we rely upon it, whether responsibly or irresponsibly, and the consequences of our actions.

Ha,ha,ha. :lol:Yeah, right. Anybody can compare whatever they like, but not me. BTW, you can borrow some stuff from Aesop. He was a very smart fellow.

One thing I really can't digest. How come one devoted Buddhist like you Taeguk can radiate such a vast quantities of irony and sarcasm. Simply it doesn't make sense. You should be compassionate, full of love and understanding towards ignorant here on TBW.

:think: So you are requesting that Taeguk make your arguments for you Vlatko? I have to admit, it seems very strange for you to suggest (and simultaneously contradict) that "whatever we do will be natural", considering that mere months ago your whole argument against homosexual behavior was that it was "unnatural".

Ok whenever Taeguk replies there is the_aphid too. You are like a shadow of him, or he is like a shadow of you. Maybe you're the same person. Whatever. I see that you're still carrying the frustration of the "homosexuals" debate where you lost your composure. Ok I'm contradicting myself here, but there you were claiming that everything what humans do it's natural, or better said that there is no natural or unnatural, therefore homosexuality is perfectly OK. And here you are saying that humanity have to stop the activities that are harming the Earth. But wait a minute... You said that that there is no natural or unnatural, homosexuality is OK, but still there is something else that humans do which is not in harmony with Earth (destroying the environment). Isn't that a contradiction or I don't get it?

Cheers, Vlatko

[the_aphid]

Ok whenever Taeguk replies there is the_aphid too. You are like a shadow of him, or he is like a shadow of you. Maybe you're the same person.I assure you, I have no control over what Taeguk has to say. If we tend to agree on a number of issues it is merely because we have similar outlooks. I can also point you to numerous times where we have disagreed with one another, however, when we do disagree it is always amiable.Whatever. I see that you're still carrying the frustration of the "homosexuals" debate where you lost your composure.I simply bring it up because it clearly identifies the contradiction in your logic Vlatko. Frustration? Lost composure? You convince yourself of that if you like...Ok I'm contradicting myself here, but there you were claiming that everything what humans do it's natural, or better said that there is no natural or unnatural, therefore homosexuality is perfectly OK. And here you are saying that humanity have to stop the activities that are harming the Earth. But wait a minute... You said that that there is no natural or unnatural, homosexuality is OK, but still there is something else that humans do which is not in harmony with Earth (destroying the environment). Isn't that a paradox or I'm just stupid?Well...there is no paradox, I'll say that much ;) What I have claimed is that all actions and behaviors can be thought of as "natural". To reiterate the points you provided in the other thread, cannibalism, rape, infanticide, etc, are all very negative behaviors which are entirely natural. My whole point is that you cannot determine the value of a particular action or behavior based on some arbitrary label of 'natural' or 'unnatural'. You assign value to that action or behavior based on weighing the benefit/detriment of that behavior. Thoughtless consumption of resources, overpopulation, pollution, etc, all lead to one end-game, that being the premature collapse of human civilization. It is the Easter Island scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#Destruction_of_the_ecosystem) on a global scale. It is entirely natural, we are not the only species to behave this way, but as far as we know we are the only species to exist which is capable of the required awareness to prevent such behavior, and choose another path.

[Taeguk]

Yes you're not saying but you're implying. Again, 70% of the world just started do develop. With what do you expect those nations do develop. They need fuel, and they simply need to pollute.

I am not implying that we "cripple science and technology", which is what you claimed. As I already pointed out, it will require redoubled efforts in scientific research and technological innovation to address the issues of global warming.

I also never said there is a one size fits all approach for every country. Development in some areas is obviously far behind development in others, and these nations should not be penalized. However, the biggest polluters (i.e. the US, China) need to clean up their acts. As it is developing nations do not "need to pollute"; if the already developed nations can develop new ways of generating energy, we can help less industrialized countries become prosperous without the pollution.

Ha,ha,ha. :lol:Yeah, right. Anybody can compare whatever they like, but not me. BTW, you can borrow some stuff from Aesop. He was a very smart fellow.

You are missing my point. I am not criticizing the fact that you made an analogy, I am criticizing the aptness of the analogy. The analogy you made does not adequately represent the stance of environmentalists, which is why it fails.

Ok whenever Taeguk replies there is the_aphid too. You are like a shadow of him, or he is like a shadow of you. Maybe you're the same person.

This is absurd. First of all, our writing styles are entirely different, we post at different times, and on different topics. Secondly, as Aphid points out, we have disagreed on things before and we no doubt will continue to do so in the future---but this disagreement can be amicable. One doesn't have to start hurling insults and accusations, as you tend to do at the slightest sign of disagreement (more on this shortly).

Most importantly, it is actually against the rules here to have multiple accounts on thebigview. The board administrator, Thomas, has access to the IP addresses of every member here and would have discovered it long ago if this was the case.

One thing I really can't digest. How come one devoted Buddhist like you Taeguk can radiate such a vast quantities of irony and sarcasm. Simply it doesn't make sense. You should be compassionate, full of love and understanding towards ignorant here on TBW.

First of all, I am not a Buddhist. And even if I was, Buddhists are human beings---not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

Second of all, none of my comments here have been ironic or sarcastic. You can attribute those qualities to my responses if you wish, but you are the one imparting them, not I. Just because I am critical of certain statements does not mean I am being sarcastic or ironic.

Thirdly, if this conversation is going to degenerate into a series of ad hominem attacks, I am simply going to leave it. Many conversations with you do wind up degenerating in this fashion, Vlatko, and no, I am not being ironic or sarcastic, I am simply describing what appears to be a consistent pattern of behavior with you. Rather than addressing the arguments and statements of the people you are discussing with, you make ad-hominem remarks or dismiss their points with smiley faces. One can see this in the thread on homosexuality (http://thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3246), in this thread (http://thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2951&page=3), and countless others. Actually, from the beginning, from your very first thread (http://thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2877), you have shown yourself to be rude, impolite, and generally more interested in rhetorical flourishes and argumentation than you are in constructive dialogue, mutual understanding, or friendly discussion.

To be quite frank I find the whole routine tiresome, and until you decide to conduct yourself with a modicum of respect and civility see little point in engaging you. So I am taking my leave from this discussion, and all others with you.

[Akamu]

I don't have much to add as the aphid and Taeguk put forth very well constructed arguments, far beyond my ability to articulate. I would like to inquire as to why the essence of their arguments are being side-stepped and then replied with ad hominem remarks and irrelevant and ridiculous accusations.

So the whole reason we should keep polluting the planet is because 70% of the world must develop so that they can pollute the planet as well? Well if 70% of the world is simply playing follow-the-leader, then why don't we set a cleaner example for them? Being environmentally conscious would cripple science and technology? I don't think so; science and technology would flourish under the pressures of creating new means in which to harness and utilize energy. On the contrary to your statement, relying on the burning of coal is a hundreds of years old practice and relatively primitive compared to what we are actually capable of and which is simply not getting funding.

As to our minimal impact on the planet, what would you call the extinction, endangerment, and suffering of countless lifeforms under our mistreatment of our home? Maybe we can't harm the "rock" of the planet...but this hardly constitutes the planet (although we certainly are capable of blowing up this "rock" hundreds of times over...so don't undermine the potency of our destructive capabilities.) I would think it would be quite with it to tone down our pollutive ways if even to save a few lives....animals, plants, and humans alike.

And now this nonsense of not doing anything about it because we will simply perish regardless...I inquire of you why you are even discussing this on this board right now? If nothing really matters, you should be out having the time of your life. Our end does not erase our present existence. I believe it quite preferable that we make our lives as pleasant and as peaceful as we can while we still have them. I am glad that this nihilism doesn't permeate everyone's mind.

[Vlatko]

Well...there is no paradox, I'll say that much ;) What I have claimed is that all actions and behaviors can be thought of as "natural". To reiterate the points you provided in the other thread, cannibalism, rape, infanticide, etc, are all very negative behaviors which are entirely natural. My whole point is that you cannot determine the value of a particular action or behavior based on some arbitrary label of 'natural' or 'unnatural'. You assign value to that action or behavior based on weighing the benefit/detriment of that behavior. Thoughtless consumption of resources, overpopulation, pollution, etc, all lead to one end-game, that being the premature collapse of human civilization. It is the Easter Island scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#Destruction_of_the_ecosystem) on a global scale. It is entirely natural, we are not the only species to behave this way, but as far as we know we are the only species to exist which is capable of the required awareness to prevent such behavior, and choose another path.Ok than, lets g step by step and see what you're saying the_aphid:

1. Everything what humans do is "natural".
2. Homosexuality,cannibalism, rape, infanticide, etc, are all "entirely natural."
3. Thoughtless consumption of resources, overpopulation, pollution, etc are also "entirely natural."
4. But we as a species have required awareness to prevent such behavior, and choose another path.

All these things according to you are natural but you want a prevention (homosexuality excluded). If we choose another path, that would be also "perfectly natural" since everything what humans do is "natural". That means this path and all the other paths are "natural". If all the paths are natural than what is the meaning of choosing another path?:think:You are missing my point. I am not criticizing the fact that you made an analogy, I am criticizing the aptness of the analogy. Every time I respond it seems I'm missing your point Taeguk. But maybe I'm not missing the point but you're only cunningly evading what I'm saying and you are placing ad-hominem remark: You cannot meaningfully compare the activities of human beings to acitivities of some hypothetical ants you seem to have dragged out of Aesop's Fables.

If you carefully analyze your texts you will easily see that they have patronizing, arrogant flavor and they are radiating irony and sarcasm. But of course you can not see this, so let me refresh your memory by simply quoting you on how you usually start your sentences:

You are missing my point...
You cannot meaningfully compare...
Even your analogy fails...
This is absurd...
The problem is that you are confusing ordinary speech...

These are extracted from my threads that you specified as degenerating. I can browse for days and I can find hundreds of those famous lines of yours. It is obvious that with that approach you will irritate people around you. Imagine in conversation with someone at one point you are just saying that he is confused, that he is missing the point, that he doesn't know what he's saying. Just tell me that these are not ad-hominem attacks.

Anyway, Cheers

[the_aphid]

Vlatko, I am going to offer up one final reply. I am also going to cover some of the points you have posed to Taeguk, only because I am certain he is simply going to ignore you. Following this post I am going to join him and simply ignore your posts as well because I am beginning to regret the amount of time I have wasted getting involved with pointless rhetorical debates with you. So here we go... :rolleyes:
Ok than, lets g step by step and see what you're saying the_aphid:

1. Everything what humans do is "natural".
2. Homosexuality,cannibalism, rape, infanticide, etc, are all "entirely natural."
3. Thoughtless consumption of resources, overpopulation, pollution, etc are also "entirely natural."
4. But we as a species have required awareness to prevent such behavior, and choose another path.And that is also entirely natural. Seems like you are on track so far.All these things according to you are natural but you want a prevention (homosexuality excluded). If we choose another path, that would be also "perfectly natural" since everything what humans do is "natural". That means this path and all the other paths are "natural". If all the paths are natural than what is the meaning of choosing another path?:think:Because you are choosing the paths based not on what is 'natural' or 'unnatural', but on what is moral/immoral, what is beneficial/detrimental, what is helpful/harmful. Homosexuality should not be oppressed and stigmatized since it is in no way harmful. If two willing individuals want to engage in homosexual relations, the consequences only affect the two of them. Unregulated deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, on the other hand, do not merely affect the individuals deciding upon those actions, they affect everyone and everything. They are beneficial for minorities and detrimental to majorities, thus those industries should be effectively regulated, they should be done in a responsible and sustainable manner.

This is where I retire. I do not know how else to state my argument, so if you disagree with it, or if you don't understand it, I apologize because I do not know how clearer I could possibly articulate it.
Every time I respond it seems I'm missing your point Taeguk. But maybe I'm not missing the point but you're only cunningly evading what I'm saying and you are placing ad-hominem remark
...
If you carefully analyze your texts you will easily see that they have patronizing, arrogant flavor and they are radiating irony and sarcasm. But of course you can not see this, so let me refresh your memory by simply quoting you on how you usually start your sentences:

You are missing my point...
You cannot meaningfully compare...
Even your analogy fails...
This is absurd...
The problem is that you are confusing ordinary speech...
...
Just tell me that these are not ad-hominem attacks.I am afraid that not one of those quotes are examples of ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). Not once in this thread has Taeguk, or anyone else to my recollection, attacked your character rather than answering your argument. Here is a sufficient example of ad hominem:Ok whenever Taeguk replies there is the_aphid too. You are like a shadow of him, or he is like a shadow of you. Maybe you're the same person. Whatever. I see that you're still carrying the frustration of the "homosexuals" debate where you lost your composure. - Vlatko
Notice how your accusations here have nothing to do with the topic of Environmentalism. Notice how you are accusing me of carrying frustration and lost composure in an attempt to dismantle my character, not the arguments that I am posing. My mentioning of the previous thread on homosexuality was directly related to your argument, being that you were claiming homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural. Here you were arguing that all human behavior was natural, and that there is no rational reason people should be restricted from consuming resources and polluting the earth without restriction. I was directly pointing out a contradiction in your argument.

So, this is it Vlatko. I have to cease the cyclical debates. I conceit. You win. Congrats! :thumbsup:

[Vlatko]

Well I am going to offer up one final reply too. Maybe it will be final here on TBW.

HERE IT IS (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=87347&postcount=1).

[MultipleTentacles]

For those looking for evidence of global warming:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve>

Note the following: "Measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in ancient air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores show that mean atmospheric CO2 concentration was between 275 and 285 ppmv during the Holocene epoch (9,000 BCE onwards), but started rising sharply at the beginning of the nineteenth century."

For those looking for evidence of species eradication:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event>

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly."

(Quote gotten from here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Current_mass_extinction>)

Did you read that? Not only are we causing a mass extinction, but the biggest mass extinction in all of history. My father is very connected in the scientific community compared to us ordinary people. I can vouch for the fact that these things posted on Wikipedia are almost universally agreed upon in the scientific community. Hopefully this convinces Vlatko -- ignoring overwhelming evidence would be very un-Buddhist.

I particularly liked Aphid's post, so I'm going to respond to it.

It is simply a fact. Eradication of ecosystems causes eradication of species, it diminishes biodiversity, and as you kill off integral members of the biological web of dependence, then things collapse and drastic adaptations are required for survival.

Eradicating thousands of species a day from existence is alright because new species will eventually take their place?

We are in fact eradicating ecosystems and so many species. Ironically, certain species -- dogs, cats, and plants we eat -- are doing so much better than any other species in the past have. Environmentalists often ignore this fact. Therefore, a wise environmentalist shouldn't say we are heading towards human extinction -- at least not because of the Holocene extinction event. He should say, we simply don't have the scientific knowledge to justify the idea that we are going to survive this event. Just how vital are these species we're killing to our survival? We don't know.

A similar argument could be made for global warming. We know it's happening, we know it's human-caused. But what we don't know are the effects. What will the new global weather patterns be? Will we be able to adapt to them quickly enough to prevent our extinction? Maybe, although it seems unlikely. It takes a long time and a lot of energy to adapt to a new environment. Oil -- cheap energy -- is running out, and we may not have a lot of time if we want to stave off world food riots and resource wars and such.

Right...That's an apt analogy, environmentalists are suggesting that we 'stop being human'.

Actually, I think he's right -- environmentalists are telling us to stop being human. Unfortunately, all our actions so far have been very human. It's foolishly idealistic to assume that someone can simply convince everyone to be environmentally conscious. Most people are barely conscious, in the ordinary sense. :lol: (Sorry, that was a bit sarcastic. But I'm sure you see my point. :) )

It will take a worldwide emergency to convince us to change our ways, and by then it may be too late. However, there may well be human survivors. I actually wrote a song about the predicament of these survivors. It's called "Life on Mars": <http://www.artistserver.com/artist/song.cfm/a/955/tid/19993/Neotone>

To enter into the "natural/unnatural" argument...

I have to agree that it is best to try to do things that are good, not based on some vague idea of what is natural or unnatural. I think that saying homosexuality is unnatural is inaccurate -- it's natural, but in a sense, humiliating. It just feels wrong. Some people get off on this, because it is pleasureful for these people, and flies in the face of convention. Conventional thought is that heterosexuality is right. Then again, conventional thought in junior high school is that your crush is your only love who will be with you forever. Just because it's conventional, just because it "feels right," doesn't make it right. To get back on topic, it certainly feels right for humans to behave the way they do. That's why they do it. But it is a noble pursuit to try to convince these people to behave in ways that actually are right, regardless of some nebulous feeling.

The Buddha said (as was so generously supplied by Jufa in this post (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=87719&postcount=59)), "And why do you call it 'form' (rupa)? Because it is afflicted (ruppati), thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form." As was said in the Heart of Wisdom text The Heart of Wisdom in 8000 Lines, wisdom is not found in form. Our brains are form. They have psychological artifacts, like attachment to sweet and salty, attachment to having sex, attachment to the chemicals that cause pleasure (leading to cocaine addiction), etc., which people have to renounce. This is why I agree with environmentalists, although their work is bound to be frowned upon by so many people attached to the artifacts in their minds. Sure it's "human" to be attached to these things, but I don't think it's good.

Now to weigh in on the conceit argument:

I wouldn't call it conceit more than fatherly wisdom. Humans are so intellectual, they can understand how the world works. The world does not understand how it works, it just acts, without consciousness, without awareness. Wouldn't it be better to have a clear-headed scientist than some drunken ignoramus at the wheel?

[j000han]

Wouldn't it be better to have a clear-headed scientist than some drunken ignoramus at the wheel?

Perhaps yes,
provided that this scientist knows the direction to set course to
else i'd prefer the ignoramus drunk or sober if he/she DOES know.

[MultipleTentacles]

Well, nature doesn't know which direction to set the course. That's why we need environmentalists.