[itistoday]

There's been a lot of "enviro-weenie" mudslinging here. I say cut to the chase. How many of you can say that you love your environment? Is this an unfair question? What are your thoughts?

Be advised: "Loving" your environment doesn't mean that you enjoy sleeping with insects. I love the environment but I would hate to live in a rain forest. But I love rain forests. Get it?

Edit:

I just talked to a friend of mine and he helped me realize how to better state this question so that there's less confusion on the terms.

There are many environments, like your office, but this question refers to one particular environment, namely that of Earth's environment. However, it's even more specific than that. The question refers to the environment on Earth, at this particular time, that environment which is capable of comfortably sustaining human life.

In a sense it's a rhetorical question. Of course you all love that! But the point of me asking is to remind you all of that fact, as I reminded myself today. We love Earth, like a caring mother, because she gave us life and a place to live it. Therefore, remember this love and be nice to mother Earth, because in polluting her, you are polluting your home and are ruining your ability to live comfortably.

This should seem like a brain-dead obvious fact, but the fact is, is that many people do not act in accordance with this idea. I think it's because they forgot that they love Earth and the reasons for that love.

[OldManMac]

I don't think the issue is one of love, nor hate. We should try to respect the environment, and when we leave this planet for our children, we should leave it in as good a condition as when we found it, if not better. That, IMO, is really the issue. Some people think they can just take, and destroy, whatever they want; their narcissism prevents them from realizing that there are others who have rights here as well.

[Doofy]

Yes, I love it way more than the eco-weenie townies who keep banging on about it but only ever see it on TV.

[lpkmckenna]

I love the environment. Some environmentalists, though, I do not love.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I don't think the issue is one of love, nor hate. We should try to respect the environment, and when we leave this planet for our children, we should leave it in as good a condition as when we found it, if not better.

Yes, I suspect that many people have this point of view as well. For me though, it goes beyond just respect though. I respect the environment, but it is also like a mother to me. Not just a mother, but the mother of all mothers; our creator. We simply wouldn't be here if it wasn't for "her." Granted, she's not a very loving mother (eg. Bears), but it's still the only mother of her kind we have. If we **** her up, there are no other mothers who will take care of us and provide for us (things like food, air, water).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I'd say I like the environment as much as the next guy- dislike the mother******s that claim to love it more than everyone else to the point of deluding themselves that they are somehow 'saving' it. In fact, they're generally among the least likely to actually take care of their environment, personal, or otherwise.

[subego]

The question should be "how many species are you willing to eliminate to insure humanity's survival?"

And the answer (for everyone) should be: "every single last one of the goddamn furry bastards."

P.S. I'm totally an animal/enviroment lover, just realistic.

P.P.S. "Loving" the environment is a fairly new phenomenon, for most of history the environment has been something that kills you.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by subego 

The question should be "how many species are you willing to eliminate to insure humanity's survival?"

You're confusing humanity with the environment. The question should be as is.

Originally Posted by subego

And the answer (for everyone) should be: "every single last one of the goddamn furry bastards."

There'd be no environment left if you accomplished that. Killing certainly isn't a proper way to display affection last time I checked.

Originally Posted by subego

P.P.S. "Loving" the environment is a fairly new phenomenon, for most of history the environment has been something that kills you.

Like I said, you don't have to sleep with insects, or bears for that matter, to love or at least appreciate their existence.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, I love it way more than the eco-weenie townies who keep banging on about it but only ever see it on TV.

Tough love, huh?

[subego]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

You're confusing humanity with the environment.

No, I'm not.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

The question should be as is.

My apologies if you saw my response as a direct attack on your question.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

There'd be no environment left if you accomplished that. Killing certainly isn't a proper way to display affection last time I checked.

You seem to have not understood the question I posed.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Like I said, you don't have to sleep with insects, or bears for that matter, to love or at least appreciate their existence.

I didn't say you did, or say that you said it did.

The point is that for most of humanity's existence insects and bears killed you.

[nonhuman]

I depend on the general stability of the environment to live. I like living, therefore I like things that maintain environmental stability within the ranges where I can be comfortable.

Beyond that, I also very much enjoy spending time away from cities and people, but maintaining my ability to do that comes far behind maintaining my ability to live.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by subego 

You seem to have not understood the question I posed.

Perhaps I did, perhaps we misunderstood each other?

Originally Posted by subego

The point is that for most of humanity's existence insects and bears killed you.

Yes I'm not denying that, and I hate it when they try to do that (kill me that is). I'm specifically referring to the environment as a whole though, as this grand, majestic thing that produced me and everything around me.

It seems to me that the environment doesn't get the respect (or love) it deserves these days. People will even say that they respect and/or love it, but their actions tell a different story.

[subego]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I'm specifically referring to the environment as a whole though, as this grand, majestic thing that produced me and everything around me.

It seems to me that the environment doesn't get the respect (or love) it deserves these days. People will even say that they respect and/or love it, but their actions tell a different story.

This is exactly my point. This opinion is a luxury. It's a luxury based on all the people who came before you fighting this awful uncaring beast that is nature with every fiber of their being so you can have the free time to spend looking at pretty things. If this wasn't the case, your time would be occupied trying not to die of starvation, coupled with frequent cowering under trees.

The environment is swell and all, but you're missing some perspective here.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is exactly my point. This opinion is a luxury. It's a luxury based on all the people who came before you fighting this awful uncaring beast that is nature with every fiber of their being so you can have the free time to spend looking at pretty things. If this wasn't the case, your time would be occupied trying not to die of starvation, coupled with frequent cowering under trees.

The environment is swell and all, but you're missing some perspective here.

I think you're missing my point. I hear what you're saying, you're saying that the environment is harsh, I understand that perfectly. But what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what my situation is, whether I'm here now, or back then as a monkey, as long as I'm capable of rational thought, I'm grateful to this environment for giving me a place to live.

[Chuckit]

Love is a bit strong. I appreciate the things it does for me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

In the interests of seeing the other side, Do You Love America™?

Me, I love both those things, but part of that love is recognizing that those things aren't fragile wimpering quivering weaklings that need my constant support, affection and sacrifice. It's a matter of seeing threats for what they are, and seeing false prophets and fearmongers for what they are.

More germane to the environment question, the environment will take care of itself. Even if humanity does its worst, the biggest danger is that we'll wipe ourselves out and the environment will continue on without us, barely skipping a beat. You can't stop life; life will persevere. The real question for me is, do I wish to keep the environment exactly the way it was to nurture the existence and wide proliferation of human life? This question is the exact opposite of whether I want the environment to "do its thing," because the environment's thing is to change and adapt and leave species like us in the dust.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In the interests of seeing the other side, Do You Love America™?

I love the real America, and the ideals it has traditionally stood for (freedom, peace, equality, etc). Unfortunately some people today, like Bush and those like him, have a different picture of America in mind, and are set about to do their best to realize their backwards version of it. It's unfortunate that today most of the people who waves flags of "Proud to be an American," don't know the first thing about what being an American really is.

More germane to the environment question, the environment will take care of itself. Even if humanity does its worst, the biggest danger is that we'll wipe ourselves out and the environment will continue on without us, barely skipping a beat. You can't stop life; life will persevere.

Unfortunately this is not necessarily true. We have enough nuclear weapons on this planet that if we were to detonate all of them, there's a very good chance that this planet will remain uninhabitable for several millions, if not billions of years. Then again, the science on this question is not very well known, and frankly, it's not really relevant. I don't think that that scenario is one worth considering. I'm fairly certain that every sane human does not want that to happen.

The real question for me is, do I wish to keep the environment exactly the way it was to nurture the existence and wide proliferation of human life? This question is the exact opposite of whether I want the environment to "do its thing," because the environment's thing is to change and adapt and leave species like us in the dust.

Nature does not "leave species like us in the dust." We are nature's highest achievement. We also depend on her for our own survival. It's a symbiotic relationship that if broken, will result in our most definite demise. Don't forget also that we are part of nature, and as such we have a strong say as to whether or not we are left "in the dust."

[subego]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I think you're missing my point. I hear what you're saying, you're saying that the environment is harsh, I understand that perfectly. But what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what my situation is, whether I'm here now, or back then as a monkey, as long as I'm capable of rational thought, I'm grateful to this environment for giving me a place to live.

Okay... You've been bitten by the ecocootie.

The first thing is, don't panic. The ecocootie often infects thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate people. Either that or you smell like patchouli.

When you said "grand majesty" I was worried, but when you started talking about "breaking the symbiotic relationship" I realized the bastard's eaten out most of your cerebral cortex.

Remember. Don't panic. Removing it won't hurt... too much.


Let me give you a little background. The Earth, the environment, nature, whatever you want to call it, has certain unique characteristics, like, say... being unique. It's singular. We have only one Earth! Good God, it's...

Irreplaceable.

If you're with me so far, that's good. I've got my forceps on the ecocootie, and am going to yank the thing out your ear. Don't move.

I'm not kidding. Don't move.


Back on the one Earth that we have, humans have evolved a very refined ability to detect someone blatantly screwing them over. Part and parcel with that is the ability to make instantaneous and, in that context, accurate value judgments.

If the judgment you have to make is "what is the value of a unique and irreplaceable resource upon which all life depends" our brain is natively equipped to provide only one answer.

It's infinite.

Okay. I see the head...

Awww. It's soooo cuddly looking.


Unfortunately (in this context) the value of infinity is a prime example of a notion that is worse than useless. Not only does it lack any practical application, it actively defeats the only thing that will fix the problem: an accurate valuation of the damage we cause. The reason we need an accurate valuation is plain and simple. It's so we can wreck stuff.

Does this mean don't love the Earth, the environment and nature with all your heart? No. It's the exact opposite. I can't think of a more universal illustration of loving something meaning you need to be willing to let it go.


There. All gone.

Expect normal functioning to resume in three to five minutes, and don't forget to get plenty of fresh air.

[Dakar²]

What'd the environment ever do for me?

[Kevin]

Just a rest stop to eternity baby. And it smells like a urine cake.

[lpkmckenna]

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

P.P.S. "Loving" the environment is a fairly new phenomenon, for most of history the environment has been something that kills you.

I feel that this statement ignores historical basis. Whether it was harsh to them or not, I think it would be safe to say that most native indigenous peoples around the world had a love and respect for the environment around them that was emphasized and reinforced by their belief system(s).

I think I could safely say I love the environment. I spent most of my formative years wandering through the forest, anyway.

greg


Edit: I'm not really one of those eco-weenies that Doof and Crash portrays the environmentalists to be, though. When either of them have shot a moose, snared rabbits, or shot a seal and then dragged its bloody carcass along the sea-ice by a hook, they can start talking.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by subego 

Unfortunately (in this context) the value of infinity is a prime example of a notion that is worse than useless. Not only does it lack any practical application, it actively defeats the only thing that will fix the problem: an accurate valuation of the damage we cause. The reason we need an accurate valuation is plain and simple. It's so we can wreck stuff.

subego... you really don't seem to understand my position. I'm not even yet talking about preserving the earth or anything like that. I'm talking talking about simple love and appreciation of it; you can get to preservation later. And in terms of "wrecking stuff," if you had to bring that up, I'm concerned mainly with global warming, and that is not an issue that I, or any other member of the human race, should "let go of" and allow it to destroy everything.

Originally Posted by subego

Does this mean don't love the Earth, the environment and nature with all your heart? No. It's the exact opposite. I can't think of a more universal illustration of loving something meaning you need to be willing to let it go.

There. All gone.

Expect normal functioning to resume in three to five minutes, and don't forget to get plenty of fresh air.

I'm feeling fine, but you don't seem to be holding anything in your forceps. Are we done playing doctor now?

Here, perhaps this will help you understand what I'm talking about.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I love the real America, and the ideals it has traditionally stood for (freedom, peace, equality, etc). Unfortunately some people today, like Bush and those like him, have a different picture of America in mind, and are set about to do their best to realize their backwards version of it.

I agree 100%. But don't you think it's possible that you have inadvertently become the same misrepresenter of the environment that the neocons have become of America? Look at the similarities for a second:
1. Neocons say that America is under attack
2. Neocons say that we must sacrifice some of our deepest held freedoms in exchange for defending freedom itself.
3. Neocons say that if we don't make these sacrifices, utter destruction will befall our precious America, because it is weak and fragile and in deepest peril.
4. If you disagree with them it's because you hate America.
Now to you and me, all of these statements are utterly false. The threat is not as great as they make it out, the sacrifices are not justified, and America isn't as fragile as they describe. Now look at what you're saying:
1. The environment is under attack
2. We must sacrifice some of our closest held benefits of natural resources in exchange for defending nature itself
3. If we don't make these sacrifices, utter destruction will befall our precious environment, because it is weak and fragile and in deepest peril.
4. If I disagree with you it's because I hate the environment.

It's pretty much word-for-word the same claims the neocons make about America, but you're making them about the environment. If you think they are wrong about their claims, don't you see how they can logically think you are wrong about your claims?

It may simply be that they are wrong and you are right (or both of you are right after all), but I encourage you to try to think about that with an open mind.

Unfortunately this is not necessarily true. We have enough nuclear weapons on this planet that if we were to detonate all of them, there's a very good chance that this planet will remain uninhabitable for several millions, if not billions of years.

It's believable that the forms of life we know best will not be able to inhabit that environment, but I'm pretty confident that some form of life will survive and even flourish in our absence ("our" referring to mammals, vertebrates, maybe even all animals, but certainly not all multicellular life).

I'm fairly certain that every sane human does not want that to happen.

But the reason for that is not out of a feeling of protecting the environment itself, it is out of protecting the very specific tolerances of the environment which support modern human life. It's a selfish impulse, to protect our own survival (and I embrace it fully).

Nature does not "leave species like us in the dust." We are nature's highest achievement.

Oh barf. Species on our level of sophistication have come and gone, many times. The only thing which sets us apart is intelligence, and our claim to that prize is really only made based on some very conceited guess-work.

Anyway, no matter what delusions you're under, I don't think you can deny that nature would do just fine if all humans were to suddenly disappear today. It's not a symbiotic relationship, it's parasitic.

and as such we have a strong say as to whether or not we are left "in the dust."

We certainly do, but on a geologic timescale it's a losing battle (whereas, significantly, the environment will continue to exist until the sun burns out and consumes the earth). I certainly agree that we should do everything in our power to sustain our existence, and in that I agree with you that the "environment" should be protected. But it comes down to what you mean by "environment." You seem to be implying that it means "whatever it would have been if we don't affect it." But I say it really means "whatever is within the tolerances of our personal continued enjoyment and exploitative potential." At first blush I can see you will think that my definition is merely a subset of yours, but don't make that mistake. The environment is constantly changing, with or without us, and my definition is required in order to prevent the natural changes which will eventually preclude human existence.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I feel that this statement ignores historical basis. I think it would be safe to say that most native indigenous peoples around the world had a love and respect for the environment around them that was emphasized and reinforced by their belief system(s).

Huh?

Most "native" peoples have a totally wonky notion of love based on maintaining the power of the patriarchy.

I'll agree they understand the notion of respect. It's something you give to that which is larger than you. Bonus if they have sharp teeth.

Every academic explanation I have ever heard regarding the origins of religion surmise it is based in fear. Fear of nature.

Almost every ancient society that comes to mind either fears nature, or portrays it as something that exists for our exploitation.

Even Egypt, who had a pretty sweet deal in the nature department, made sure you appeased the dude with the croc head.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I agree 100%. But don't you think it's possible that you have inadvertently become the same misrepresenter of the environment that the neocons have become of America? Look at the similarities for a second:
1. Neocons say that America is under attack
2. Neocons say that we must sacrifice some of our deepest held freedoms in exchange for defending freedom itself.
3. Neocons say that if we don't make these sacrifices, utter destruction will befall our precious America, because it is weak and fragile and in deepest peril.
4. If you disagree with them it's because you hate America.
Now to you and me, all of these statements are utterly false. The threat is not as great as they make it out, the sacrifices are not justified, and America isn't as fragile as they describe. Now look at what you're saying:
1. The environment is under attack
2. We must sacrifice some of our closest held benefits of natural resources in exchange for defending nature itself
3. If we don't make these sacrifices, utter destruction will befall our precious environment, because it is weak and fragile and in deepest peril.
4. If I disagree with you it's because I hate the environment.

It's pretty much word-for-word the same claims the neocons make about America, but you're making them about the environment. If you think they are wrong about their claims, don't you see how they can logically think you are wrong about your claims?

It may simply be that they are wrong and you are right (or both of you are right after all), but I encourage you to try to think about that with an open mind.

Easily the most well-thought out post I've read around here in a while.

[subego]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

subego... you really don't seem to understand my position. I'm not even yet talking about preserving the earth or anything like that.

You didn't need to talk about it for me to know it was on your mind. Note the bold.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

And in terms of "wrecking stuff," if you had to bring that up, I'm concerned mainly with global warming, and that is not an issue that I, or any other member of the human race, should "let go of" and allow it to destroy everything.

You don't see it, do you?

Your ecocootie is forcing you to interpret everything I say as an absolute. I never said destroy everything. Never, ever. Not once.

When I bring up the notion of "wrecking things", it's because, if you haven't noticed, we are wrecking things. We will always be wrecking things. The only solution to the problem is to manage wrecking things.

When I bring this up, explicitly for the purpose of solving the problem, for some reason [cough]ecocootie[cough] your brain seems to think I am talking in absolutes and am therefore The Man™.

This is what I meant when I said "worse than useless".

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I'm feeling fine, but you don't seem to be holding anything in your forceps. Are we done playing doctor now?

Here, perhaps this will help you understand what I'm talking about.

Well, I told you not to move.

Sometimes the thing tries to cocoon, and leaves behind a hard shell comprised of mucus, wheat grass and koala hair.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I agree 100%. But don't you think it's possible that you have inadvertently become the same misrepresenter of the environment that the neocons have become of America? Look at the similarities for a second:
1. Neocons say that America is under attack
2. Neocons say that we must sacrifice some of our deepest held freedoms in exchange for defending freedom itself.
3. Neocons say that if we don't make these sacrifices, utter destruction will befall our precious America, because it is weak and fragile and in deepest peril.
4. If you disagree with them it's because you hate America.
Now to you and me, all of these statements are utterly false. The threat is not as great as they make it out, the sacrifices are not justified, and America isn't as fragile as they describe. Now look at what you're saying:
1. The environment is under attack

Technically, in this thread all I'm saying is that I love nature, but yes, I have also said something along those lines in other threads too.

2. We must sacrifice some of our closest held benefits of natural resources in exchange for defending nature itself

No, in other threads I have stated that we need to change the resources that we're using to get energy. I never said we need to sacrifice the benefits that we get from them (transportation, energy, etc).

3. If we don't make these sacrifices, utter destruction will befall our precious environment, because it is weak and fragile and in deepest peril.

If we don't stop our dependence on fossil fuels, then yes, destruction will befall the environment, but not because it's "weak and fragile," in fact it's a testament to the strength of Earth that it's still going strong after we've been polluting it for so long. After a while though, even Rocky will collapse from repetitive abuse.

4. If I disagree with you it's because I hate the environment.

No, it's because you're ignorant. That is my stance.

It's pretty much word-for-word the same claims the neocons make about America, but you're making them about the environment. If you think they are wrong about their claims, don't you see how they can logically think you are wrong about your claims?

It may simply be that they are wrong and you are right (or both of you are right after all), but I encourage you to try to think about that with an open mind.

Our claims are not the same, they are on different subjects and you didn't fully represent my side, but yes, there are similarities that I'm willing to grant you. But that means nothing. Just because there are similarities, as you pointed out, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

It's believable that the forms of life we know best will not be able to inhabit that environment, but I'm pretty confident that some form of life will survive and even flourish in our absence ("our" referring to mammals, vertebrates, maybe even all animals, but certainly not all multicellular life).

Agreed.

But the reason for that is not out of a feeling of protecting the environment itself, it is out of protecting the very specific tolerances of the environment which support modern human life. It's a selfish impulse, to protect our own survival (and I embrace it fully).

Agreed.

Oh barf. Species on our level of sophistication have come and gone, many times. The only thing which sets us apart is intelligence, and our claim to that prize is really only made based on some very conceited guess-work.

Anyway, no matter what delusions you're under, I don't think you can deny that nature would do just fine if all humans were to suddenly disappear today. It's not a symbiotic relationship, it's parasitic.

I'd appreciate it if you not call me delusional without substantiating that accusation. Otherwise I agree with you here 99%, and yes, it is a parasitic relationship (for the most part; some animals depend on us), all the more reason to protect our host.

We certainly do, but on a geologic timescale it's a losing battle (whereas, significantly, the environment will continue to exist until the sun burns out and consumes the earth). I certainly agree that we should do everything in our power to sustain our existence, and in that I agree with you that the "environment" should be protected.

Good.

But it comes down to what you mean by "environment." You seem to be implying that it means "whatever it would have been if we don't affect it."

No, sorry if you got that from what I was saying, but that's not what I mean by it.

But I say it really means "whatever is within the tolerances of our personal continued enjoyment and exploitative potential." At first blush I can see you will think that my definition is merely a subset of yours, but don't make that mistake. The environment is constantly changing, with or without us, and my definition is required in order to prevent the natural changes which will eventually preclude human existence.

My definition of the environment is just that, the environment, Earth, everything that's on it. We are currently in the process of destroying it, whether that's intentional or not does not matter, that is just what the evidence seems to be saying. I want, like you do, to live in an environment where I'm most comfortable, but that requires protecting many things about it.

Hopefully this has just been a slight misunderstanding between you and I, I look forward to your response.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by subego 

You didn't need to talk about it for me to know it was on your mind. Note the bold.

Bravo! I put that there just for you, and you found it!

When I bring up the notion of "wrecking things", it's because, if you haven't noticed, we are wrecking things. We will always be wrecking things. The only solution to the problem is to manage wrecking things.

When I bring this up, explicitly for the purpose of solving the problem, for some reason [cough]ecocootie[cough] your brain seems to think I am talking in absolutes and am therefore The Man™.

This is what I meant when I said "worse than useless".

OK?

Well, I told you not to move.

Sometimes the thing tries to cocoon, and leaves behind a hard shell comprised of mucus, wheat grass and koala hair.

100% Silly™

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

No, in other threads I have stated that we need to change the resources that we're using to get energy. I never said we need to sacrifice the benefits that we get from them (transportation, energy, etc).

But there is currently no viable alternative to fossil fuels for transportation. What exactly would you propose?

If we don't stop our dependence on fossil fuels, then yes, destruction will befall the environment, but not because it's "weak and fragile,"

So you say, but to anyone listening who believes the environment is actually strong enough to withstand whatever we've got (pollution, not nuclear), what you're saying amounts to exactly that.

Just because there are similarities, as you pointed out, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

I never said it does, I said it gives you the opportunity to look at the issue objectively, which I don't think you're doing.

BTW, what exactly is your answer to people who say "if you love America you have to support the War on Terror?" Best I can tell, you're answer is "no I don't. I love America and I will do exactly nothing to support the War on Terror." Is that it?

I'd appreciate it if you not call me delusional without substantiating that accusation.

You said we are nature's highest achievement. It doesn't require any more substantiation.

My definition of the environment is just that, the environment, Earth, everything that's on it.

Including humans?

We are currently in the process of destroying it

By what standard? "Nature" in general, like evolution, has no directionality, and no standard of success or failure (beyond the simple fact of existing, which of course is always met). Do you measure "destruction" by simply "change?" If so, that's exactly what I said: "whatever it would have been if we don't affect it." If not, what other metric of "destruction" could you possibly mean?

Hopefully this has just been a slight misunderstanding between you and I, I look forward to your response.

You and me, please.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But there is currently no viable alternative to fossil fuels for transportation. What exactly would you propose?

There are plenty of viable alternatives! Electric cars, Hydrogen fuel cells, and I'm sure there are plenty of other new ideas being thought up as we speak. Electric cars have been around for a while and a decade ago they were commercial (though they didn't sell well for many reasons, see the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" for more on that). They have improved them considerably since and are planning on releasing them soon. Hybrids are here now. Hydrogen fuel cells are not yet fully ready to be used as there are still bugs to work out, so yes, those are "currently" available, but they will be, and the government should sponsor more research into alternative fuels.

So you say, but to anyone listening who believes the environment is actually strong enough to withstand whatever we've got (pollution, not nuclear), what you're saying amounts to exactly that.

You misunderstood what I've been saying. I want an environment where we can live in, that environment is under attack and can indeed be destroyed. And don't go saying that that's not the environment I was referring to, it is, as it is the environment that is currently surrounding us.

I never said it does, I said it gives you the opportunity to look at the issue objectively, which I don't think you're doing.

That's great. I think I am.

BTW, what exactly is your answer to people who say "if you love America you have to support the War on Terror?" Best I can tell, you're answer is "no I don't. I love America and I will do exactly nothing to support the War on Terror." Is that it?

If you love America, reasonably you should protect her from attacks. There are many ways of doing that. Creating more terrorists who hate her certainly is not one of them.

You said we are nature's highest achievement. It doesn't require any more substantiation.

That's obviously a matter of opinion. I could equally call you delusional for thinking otherwise. The word delusional is best used with respect to objective truth, in this case it's purely a matter of opinion.

Including humans?

Well, gee, if I say "everything" I think it's safe for you to assume that that encapsulates humans. I think it's especially important that we protect humans. Don't misunderstand though, saying you love the environment, and "protecting" each and every piece of it, are two very different things.

By what standard? "Nature" in general, like evolution, has no directionality, and no standard of success or failure (beyond the simple fact of existing, which of course is always met). Do you measure "destruction" by simply "change?" If so, that's exactly what I said: "whatever it would have been if we don't affect it." If not, what other metric of "destruction" could you possibly mean?

By the standard that we're destroying the nature that is capable of supporting human life. Like I said earlier to subego, the fact that microbes could survive a nuclear holocaust is irrelevant to my point. And this entire discussion that you and I are currently having is irrelevant to this thread as it has nothing to do with loving nature and everything to do with protecting it.

You and me, please.

Suck d*ck much? Would you prefer a less civilized discussion?

[Jawbone54]

I don't love "the environment." I love nature. There's a difference.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I don't love "the environment." I love nature. There's a difference.

Really? They're the same in my head. What's the difference?

Edit: I've come to a realization about the ambiguity of these terms and will edit my original post in this thread to clarify.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You and me, please.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Suck d*ck much? Would you prefer a less civilized discussion?

Wow... this thread just totally stopped being fun.

[CreepDogg]

I don't love the environment. But I need the environment. It's kind of a messed up relationship.

[itistoday]

I've updated my original post to be more specific.

[Buckaroo]

I love the enviornment, but I hate all organizations similar to and including Green Peace, Peta, etc.

They are all scam Communist idiots.

Mostly realy stupid idiots.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

There are plenty of viable alternatives! Electric cars, Hydrogen fuel cells, and I'm sure there are plenty of other new ideas being thought up as we speak. Electric cars have been around for a while and a decade ago they were commercial (though they didn't sell well for many reasons, see the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" for more on that). They have improved them considerably since and are planning on releasing them soon. Hybrids are here now. Hydrogen fuel cells are not yet fully ready to be used as there are still bugs to work out, so yes, those are "currently" available, but they will be, and the government should sponsor more research into alternative fuels.

None of which are currently viable!!! Or do you yet ignore that?

You misunderstood what I've been saying. I want an environment where we can live in, that environment is under attack and can indeed be destroyed. And don't go saying that that's not the environment I was referring to, it is, as it is the environment that is currently surrounding us.

There'd be no environment left if you accomplished that. Killing certainly isn't a proper way to display affection last time I checked.

Hmm? Wait? Are we supposed to be affectionate towards the environment or create one in which we can live? It many cases the two are mutually exclusive and we must choose one. What if our survival depended on making this planet bare and desolate? Would you rather us die? That is the point you are implying.

That's great. I think I am.

So though you concede you are similiar in ways to the neocons, and you maintain they are irrational...you yourself are indeed rational? I believe thats where the point is made and substantiated.

If you love America, reasonably you should protect her from attacks. There are many ways of doing that. Creating more terrorists who hate her certainly is not one of them.

Bad parrallel. I don't think anyone out there wants to destroy the environment because they are religiously inclined to do so.

you have yet to define which is more important...human survival or environmental preservation. Until you choose one, you cannot define what you parallel as a "terrorist" to the environment is. Like Uncy Skel said, nature has no directionality and its pretty much up to us to define it.

That's obviously a matter of opinion. I could equally call you delusional for thinking otherwise. The word delusional is best used with respect to objective truth, in this case it's purely a matter of opinion.

Opinion? No....rational interpretation of your own arguments based upon social and logical norms. Thats where "delusional" comes from.

Well, gee, if I say "everything" I think it's safe for you to assume that that encapsulates humans. I think it's especially important that we protect humans. Don't misunderstand though, saying you love the environment, and "protecting" each and every piece of it, are two very different things.

Again, until you provide an argument in favor of, or at the very least, not contrary to human survival/evolution...then you lead us to believe you view humans as outside of what you regard as environment.

By the standard that we're destroying the nature that is capable of supporting human life. Like I said earlier to subego, the fact that microbes could survive a nuclear holocaust is irrelevant to my point. And this entire discussion that you and I are currently having is irrelevant to this thread as it has nothing to do with loving nature and everything to do with protecting it.

Loving and protecting generally go hand in hand. There is at least indirect relevance. Again, you must pick one from this hypothetical dichotomy before you can argue a logically consistent argument. Human survival or the environment as it is today?

Suck d*ck much? Would you prefer a less civilized discussion?

I don't think I need to say it....but this only reflects upon you and your arguments.

[Big Mac]

I wouldn't say I "love" the environment. I do have a deep appreciation of the awesome splendor of God's creations, however.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I wouldn't say I "love" the environment. I do have a deep appreciation of the awesome splendor of God's creations, however.

I do get the context of the message though and I think it has value for other reasons. I think people get too bogged down with the day to day. iPods, cell phones, meetings, fast food, concerts, sporting events, etc... it's nice to just stop (or maybe not stop, but hike) and listen to birds chirp or smell the roses every now and then.

That said, the OP seems to have taken an appreciation for the environment and built a religion of sorts around it. This is where the OP has lost most readers. People on MacNN do not take kindly to the religious telling them about their values or how to live their lives.

[ebuddy]

Itistoday has asked you a question Uncle, are you going to answer it?

You know what the question is big boy.

(mind boggling over audacity of some posters here)

[Uncle Skeleton]

It'll cost you dinner and a movie to find out

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

There are plenty of viable alternatives! Electric cars, Hydrogen fuel cells, ... Hybrids ...

Electric (and hybrid): batteries are a fatal flaw. They have a limited number of recharge cycles in them before they have to be replaced. They are made of some of the most caustic substances known to man. Their manufacture involves some of the most environmentally hazardous processes used today, and it's not even legal to dispose of them in a landfill, you have to pay someone just to take them off your hands. I don't suppose you've seen this current thread in the lounge, where it's pointed out (again) that the "dust-to-dust" environmental cost of hybrids sits right at the industry average for all consumer vehicles (SUVs included), and the dust-to-dust cost of a Prius (the best of the hybrids by this metric) is even worse than a Hummer H3. Personally, my car's dust-to-dust rating is half that of any hybrid. The one commercial electric car, the Tesla Roadster (which I might add costs 100 grand and is not even on the road yet), will need all it's 6000 batteries replaced after about 3 years of normal use. Now try to think of a reason why other commercial EV ventures were discontinued after under 3 years (something that wasn't even addressed in WKTEC). Also, we'll see how they do in sub-40 temperatures outside of CA...

They're not viable with today's technology. And fuel cells? I'll believe it when I see it.

If you love America, reasonably you should protect her from attacks. There are many ways of doing that. Creating more terrorists who hate her certainly is not one of them.

So your answer to the War on Terror™ is "no" then? What's wrong with people saying "no" to you then? What's wrong with them saying "there are ways of preserving the environment, but creating animosity among people like me is not one of them?"

Well, gee, if I say "everything" I think it's safe for you to assume that that encapsulates humans. I think it's especially important that we protect humans.

Oh, you didn't get it. If humans are a part of the environment, how can you say humans are "destroying" the environment? That's like saying beavers are destroying the environment. Or better yet, all plant life is destroying the environment. Plants completely eliminated the CO2-based atmosphere and replaced it with an O2 dominated one.

Just like subego said, you have to give boundaries for how much customization of our environment is "acceptable." Because humans affect the rest of the environment, just like every other member of the environment does.

Here's the meat of your problem:

"Therefore, remember this love and be nice to mother Earth, because in polluting her, you are polluting your home and are ruining your ability to live comfortably."

Are you saying there should be zero pollution? As hard as it is for you to accept, one of our natural resources is landfills, places to dump our waste. You said you weren't advocating us giving up some of our natural resources, but that is incompatible with calling for an end to all pollution. So which is it?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

the OP seems to have taken an appreciation for the environment and built a religion of sorts around it. This is where the OP has lost most readers. People on MacNN do not take kindly to the religious telling them about their values or how to live their lives.

[Hermit]

I love Mother Nature.
I know she wants to kill me but I don't hold it against her (hell, I've got that going on with all the women in my life).

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Hermit 

I love Mother Nature.
I know she wants to kill me but I don't hold it against her (hell, I've got that going on with all the women in my life).

You get it.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

You get it.

HaHa

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Electric (and hybrid): batteries are a fatal flaw. They have a limited number of recharge cycles in them before they have to be replaced.

...

The one commercial electric car, the Tesla Roadster (which I might add costs 100 grand and is not even on the road yet), will need all it's 6000 batteries replaced after about 3 years of normal use. Now try to think of a reason why other commercial EV ventures were discontinued after under 3 years (something that wasn't even addressed in WKTEC).

Pretty sure you're wrong there. Do your research. They did discuss battery life in WKTEK, and they distinctly said that they will on average outlast the lifespan of the car itself. From wikipedia:

In real world use, some fleet Toyota RAV4 EVs, using NiMH batteries, have exceeded 100,000 miles (160,000 km) with little degradation in their daily range.[18] Quoting that report's concluding assessment:

"The five-vehicle test is demonstrating the long-term durability of Nickel Metal Hydride batteries and electric drive trains. Only slight performance degradation has been observed to-date on four out of five vehicles.... EVTC test data provide strong evidence that all five vehicles will exceed the 100,000-mile mark. SCE’s positive experience points to the very strong likelihood of a 130,000 to 150,000-mile Nickel Metal Hydride battery and drive-train operational life. EVs can therefore match or exceed the lifecycle miles of comparable internal combustion engine vehicles.

"In June 2003 the 320 RAV4 EVs of the SCE fleet were used primarily by meter readers, service managers, field representatives, service planners and mail handlers, and for security patrols and carpools. In five years of operation, the RAV4 EV fleet had logged more than 6.9 million miles, eliminating about 830 tons of air pollutants, and preventing more than 3,700 tons of tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions. Given the successful operation of its EVs to-date, SCE plans to continue using them well after they all log 100,000-miles."

Battery electric vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, you're right, that these cars are fairly expensive, however the future is bright, and we're talking about feasible alternatives that will begin appearing on the streets within the next few years. Li-ion batteries seem to be the next thing in BEVs, we'll see how that goes, they should offer improvements in terms of performance and cost.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

They are made of some of the most caustic substances known to man. Their manufacture involves some of the most environmentally hazardous processes used today, and it's not even legal to dispose of them in a landfill, you have to pay someone just to take them off your hands.

...

I don't suppose you've seen this current thread in the lounge, where it's pointed out (again) that the "dust-to-dust" environmental cost of hybrids sits right at the industry average for all consumer vehicles (SUVs included), and the dust-to-dust cost of a Prius (the best of the hybrids by this metric) is even worse than a Hummer H3. Personally, my car's dust-to-dust rating is half that of any hybrid. Also, we'll see how they do in sub-40 temperatures outside of CA...

It is patently wrong to say that just because one particular manufacturing plant caused environmental damage that all of them will. Until I see a credible source saying that it's impossible to make these things safely, there's no reason to say that we can't.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

They're not viable with today's technology.

Many people actually working on this problem disagree with you, and in fact they say you're dead wrong. We're gonna see all this stuff on the streets within 5 years. I will take their word for it over yours.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

And fuel cells? I'll believe it when I see it.

That's the spirit!

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

So your answer to the War on Terror™ is "no" then? What's wrong with people saying "no" to you then? What's wrong with them saying "there are ways of preserving the environment, but creating animosity among people like me is not one of them?"

You're right when you say that creating animosity among people is not a way to save the environment. What's wrong with people saying we shouldn't do anything about global warming? What's wrong with destroying the rain forests? What's wrong with overpopulation? I don't think I need to explain it to you, you know what I will say already (I hope). I don't care nearly as much whether or not some cat will go extinct in one area of the world, as cats don't have that big of an impact on the environment. These other issues on the other hand, place the fate of mankind on the line. That concerns me.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Oh, you didn't get it. If humans are a part of the environment, how can you say humans are "destroying" the environment? That's like saying beavers are destroying the environment. Or better yet, all plant life is destroying the environment. Plants completely eliminated the CO2-based atmosphere and replaced it with an O2 dominated one.

Heh, it's you who doesn't get it. It almost seems to me that you're trying to misinterpret every single ambiguity in what I'm saying in the most unfavorable and illogical manner. It would speed things up quite a bit if you took the time to try and think from my point of view, I'm not irrational as you make me out to be. I would go so far as to say that you're putting up a straw man.

There is a difference between a beaver cutting down a tree to make a small home for itself and human beings heating up the Earth to the point that most life, including our own, dies. There is a difference between the size and impact of our population and that of beavers. It is this difference that you fail to see and it is this difference that puts a heavy burden of responsibility in our hands. Beavers are not capable of destroying entire ecosystems and habitats that contain thousands of species. Humans are and they do just that. There is a difference between a beaver chopping a few trees down and humanity chopping down an entire rainforest to make room for cows.

The difference is seen in the consequences of these actions. Whereas a beaver can kill a few insects by chopping a tree down, we are killing thousands, if not millions of species that we depend on. The vast majority of our medicine comes from these places. If there is an epidemic that wipes out several millions of human lives, the cure is likely to be found in the environment of the planet, and not invented in the laboratory of some scientist. Our livestock, our materials, everything we have created and use on a daily basis without thinking about it, exists because of the stability of Earth's environment. The computer you use, the car you drive, every luxury you have can be traced back to something in Earth's environment.

So yes, humans are part of the environment. And yes, they are destroying it from the inside out like, as you so pointedly pointed out, a parasite. And yes, this needs to stop.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Just like subego said, you have to give boundaries for how much customization of our environment is "acceptable." Because humans affect the rest of the environment, just like every other member of the environment does.

Here's the meat of your problem:

"Therefore, remember this love and be nice to mother Earth, because in polluting her, you are polluting your home and are ruining your ability to live comfortably."

Are you saying there should be zero pollution?

No. Read above, and try not to create a straw man out of what I said.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

As hard as it is for you to accept, one of our natural resources is landfills, places to dump our waste. You said you weren't advocating us giving up some of our natural resources, but that is incompatible with calling for an end to all pollution. So which is it?

I never called an end to all pollution. That is physically impossible. Think before you straw man.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

None of which are currently viable!!! Or do you yet ignore that?

They are all viable.

vi·a·ble
Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL
1 : capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>
2 : capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs>
3 a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives> b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state> c (1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding <a viable candidate> (2) : financially sustainable <a viable enterprise>

Definition of viable - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Hmm? Wait? Are we supposed to be affectionate towards the environment or create one in which we can live? It many cases the two are mutually exclusive and we must choose one.

They are not mutually exclusive in the slightest. What gives you that idea?

Originally Posted by Snow-i

What if our survival depended on making this planet bare and desolate?

It doesn't. You OK?

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Would you rather us die? That is the point you are implying.

No I'm not. I'm saying quite the opposite. Learn to read... and think as well it seems...

Originally Posted by Snow-i

So though you concede you are similiar in ways to the neocons, and you maintain they are irrational...you yourself are indeed rational? I believe thats where the point is made and substantiated.

It's perfectly possible that they are wrong and I am right in my position. Just because they sound similar, doesn't mean they're the same. Uncle Skeleton already acknowledged that.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Bad parrallel. I don't think anyone out there wants to destroy the environment because they are religiously inclined to do so.

Hello? What is going on inside your head? Read the context of those statements again.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

you have yet to define which is more important...human survival or environmental preservation.

They go hand in hand!

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Again, until you provide an argument in favor of, or at the very least, not contrary to human survival/evolution...then you lead us to believe you view humans as outside of what you regard as environment.

Where are you getting this stuff? Humans are inside the environment. Humans need the environment, therefore if they want to survive they must protect it. How can you possibly not understand that?

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Loving and protecting generally go hand in hand. There is at least indirect relevance. Again, you must pick one from this hypothetical dichotomy before you can argue a logically consistent argument. Human survival or the environment as it is today?

No dichotomy! Human survival depends on a healthy environment!

Originally Posted by Snow-i

I don't think I need to say it....but this only reflects upon you and your arguments.

And the extent to which what I said went completely over your head, certainly reflects on you. Read my response above to Uncle Skeleton, perhaps that'll help you understand what I'm saying a little better.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What if our survival depended on making this planet bare and desolate? Would you rather us die? That is the point you are implying.

That's a bizarre what-if along the lines of "What if your survival depended on cutting off your head?"

[Doofy]

Ooooo... ...just seen the OP edit. So this was just another exercise in getting us t give up our SUVs. Foxtrot Oscar, hippies.