[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

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

If you were following the thread itself you would have seen why that edit was made. The primary purpose of this thread still remains to see how many people love Earth. That edit was mainly to clarify what I meant by "environment", and it also discussed what logically follows from loving something. Do you try to kill your loved ones? I would hope not. And if you do try to kill them, then did you really love them in the first place? If you love Earth (it seems you haven't voted), then don't put a knife to her neck, k? That simple.

You can have your SUVs, just ask for environmentally friendly ones.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

What'd the environment ever do for me?

That sob still owes me for the pizza.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

I appreciate your sentiment eBuddy but I caution those who read what I'm saying here not to misinterpret it as anything religious. I'm not advocating the worship or love of any deity or intangible being, on the contrary my love is for something quite real and concrete, something that you see every single waking moment. And the reasons that I present for this love, could be called practical. They're the exact same reasons you'd give for loving your mother, and admittedly, if you believe in and love God, they are likely the same reasons as those too.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

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.

Well I can't find a source about that, but I do know that not one type of battery exists that is not considered a hazardous waste when it's time to throw it away. And it stands to reason that if the finished product is composed of hazardous waste, the production process produces lots of excess hazardous waste. Appealing to some entirely unknown future "clean" production method borders on the same level of delusion as appealing to an unknown future where all "terrorists" have been eradicated, or all the gays have been convinced to finally "just go straight."

You talk about me "trying to see things from your side," how can you expect anyone who disagrees with you to make a leap like "well someday they might be cleaner than today." That's absurd.

We're gonna see all this stuff on the streets within 5 years.

Then why are you raising a stink about it now? What is your purpose?

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?

They wouldn't be saying it if people like you weren't raising their hackles all the time. You want to do something about global warming? Great, go do it. You want other people to do it? In "5 years?" Great, come back in 5 years. If you're getting a 5 year head start on badgering people to adopt technologies that don't even exist yet, I'm here to tell you to stop it. Every time people like you raise the issue before that time does far more harm than good. Have you ever read "the boy who cried wolf?"

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.

Of course I'm trying to misinterpret ambiguities! Don't you realize there are a lot of people out there who actually disagree with you? If I'm not here to tell you what's actually wrong with your reasoning, all you'll get is name-callers and taunters chattering about "eGore," whatever that is, and each side will just go home thinking they're smart and the other is stupid. And where does that get you and your progressive ideas? Precisely nowhere. The status quo is a total failure to a progressive. And until you learn that your opponents on this issue have valid objections, which you need to actually connect with them over, the status quo is exactly where you'll stay. You can't afford to have ambiguities.

It would speed things up quite a bit if you took the time to try and think from my point of view,

Ditto. Do you even understand the objections against you?

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.

I have to put up a straw man, because you haven't put up any kind of man. You're just making trouble without any stated goal. Stop it.

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.

Only in as much as humans are more numerous than beavers.

Beavers completely transform their surroundings, from forest into lake. All the other plant and animal inhabitants either die or relocate, and new underwater inhabitants replace them. Is this "destroying" the environment?

Incidentally, new forms of life have evolved to thrive in our toxic waste dumps.

What's my point, you ask? Your ambiguities are killing any chance of communication. You need to open up and admit whether you're talking about "saving the environment" for the purpose of continued sustainable human exploitation, or "saving" it out of some sort of gratitude to it, or "saving" it for the perceived "rights" of other animals, or some other reason, and you have to actually describe what conditions "saving" it would satisfy. Because the actionable consequences of those various platitudes are quite different, and because the "saving the earth" bell has already been rung too many times by previous generations of alarmists that it has already lost all meaning.

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.

You're living in absolutes, man....quantify!

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

Sounds like you're working for your ideals, dude....quantify!

PS. if you don't know what quantify means, please ask. It's important.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well I can't find a source about that, but I do know that not one type of battery exists that is not considered a hazardous waste when it's time to throw it away. And it stands to reason that if the finished product is composed of hazardous waste, the production process produces lots of excess hazardous waste. Appealing to some entirely unknown future "clean" production method borders on the same level of delusion as appealing to an unknown future where all "terrorists" have been eradicated, or all the gays have been convinced to finally "just go straight."

It's only "unknown" to those who are ignorant about it. Comparing the production and disposal of batteries to the problem of terrorism and human sexual psychology just shows how little you know about it. Creating a battery has nothing in common with creating terrorists, or homosexuals. Disposing of batteries has nothing to do with killing or detaining terrorists, or straightening homosexuals. Have you completely lost your mind?

Batteries are produced in a controlled environment where every "excess" is accounted for and stored away in air-tight containers and accounted for. This excess is used wherever it's needed, sometimes it's used to make other products, sometimes it's disposed of properly (for example there exist bacteria that will actually eat toxic waste). For those materials that cannot be disposed of in this manner (such as radioactive waste) they are sealed in tight steal drums and are safely hidden away deep underground in remote areas sealed off by fences and surrounded with warnings. And people are constantly thinking up better ways of getting rid of the stuff.

As for their disposal, batteries can be recycled just fine. Example. More info.

It would be delusional to think that we couldn't solve this problem!

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You talk about me "trying to see things from your side," how can you expect anyone who disagrees with you to make a leap like "well someday they might be cleaner than today." That's absurd.

As demonstrated above, it's not. When there is progress made every single day, and history has shown repeatedly that we solve all of these problems, there is no "leap" to be made, it's simply a waiting game at that point. And in this particular case, we already have solutions to these problems, it could easily have been that that plant was not properly disposing of materials when it could have. People do that sometimes, you know, to save money.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Then why are you raising a stink about it now? What is your purpose?

You call asking people if they love Earth, "raising a stink"?

I only added that edit later, and I already explained my purpose up above.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

They wouldn't be saying it if people like you weren't raising their hackles all the time.

Let me get this straight... People would not be ignoring and "disbelieving" global warming if they weren't told about it? People would not be destroying rainforests if environmentalists didn't tell them not to do it? Surely that's not what you mean to say? And "people like me"? Are you certain that you want to lob me in with a group of people that I may have nothing to do with?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You want to do something about global warming? Great, go do it. You want other people to do it? In "5 years?" Great, come back in 5 years. If you're getting a 5 year head start on badgering people to adopt technologies that don't even exist yet, I'm here to tell you to stop it.

This thread is about me asking you if you love Earth! Where did I tell people to "adopt technologies that don't even exist yet"? Later in the thread, and in my edit to the OP, I merely pointed out the inconsistency in people loving Earth, and polluting and harming it at the same time! I am not here to tell you to go buy a car that doesn't exit. I'm here to tell you to simply be aware of the fact that you love Earth. Everyone loves Earth. They might not be consciously aware of this love, but if you sit down and talk it over with them, they will all realize/remember that they love Earth. Then I point out to them that their actions to Earth seem consistent with those of someone who hates Earth. That's all I'm doing here.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

And until you learn that your opponents on this issue have valid objections, which you need to actually connect with them over, the status quo is exactly where you'll stay.

My opponents, it seems, do not even understand what they're objecting to as demonstrated by this response of yours, asking me, what is it that I'm doing.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I have to put up a straw man, because you haven't put up any kind of man. You're just making trouble without any stated goal. Stop it.

Read above. I've stated my goal both implicitly and explicitly in other posts to this thread, and again, more detailed in my response to you here. It is you who insists that I'm not saying what I'm saying, but rather this fantasy you've created, that is a failure on your part to "connect with" my statements.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Only in as much as humans are more numerous than beavers.

Beavers completely transform their surroundings, from forest into lake. All the other plant and animal inhabitants either die or relocate, and new underwater inhabitants replace them. Is this "destroying" the environment?

Yes, some would call it a degree of destruction, some would call it merely "change" because it's not significant. I have no problem with the beavers, I already explained to you the differences, you have ignored them it seems.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You need to open up and admit whether you're talking about "saving the environment" for the purpose of continued sustainable human exploitation, or "saving" it out of some sort of gratitude to it, or "saving" it for the perceived "rights" of other animals, or some other reason, and you have to actually describe what conditions "saving" it would satisfy.

I've described all of this already. You have ignored it unconsciously it seems.

I stated originally: I love the Earth, do you?

Then I said: Really, everyone loves it, even if they say they don't. They say that because they do not understand what I'm talking about.

Finally and more recently I have stated: If you love the Earth, why do you hurt it and turn it into something that you do not love? (Not in those exact terms, but that's the basic gist). That "something that you do not love" is a planet that is incapable of supporting human life comfortably (again, this I stated numerous times).

Now.... what part of that do you not understand? I'm afraid you'll still misunderstand. Here, remember this thing I said to you:

Originally Posted by itistoday

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.

Hope that helps you to understand what my position is.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Because the actionable consequences of those various platitudes are quite different, and because the "saving the earth" bell has already been rung too many times by previous generations of alarmists that it has already lost all meaning.

Proof right there that you're imposing a fantasy upon what I'm actually saying because of your past experiences.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You're living in absolutes, man....quantify!

Already did, here it is again:

Originally Posted by itistoday

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.

In other words, "to stop all things that will lead to the demise of mankind."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

It's only "unknown" to those who are ignorant about it.

Ok, I guess all the battery manufacturers who currently pump out pollution only do so because they are ignorant about the process of manufacturing batteries. Good point.

Batteries are produced in a controlled environment where every "excess" is accounted for and stored away in air-tight containers and accounted for. This excess is used wherever it's needed, sometimes it's used to make other products, sometimes it's disposed of properly (for example there exist bacteria that will actually eat toxic waste). For those materials that cannot be disposed of in this manner (such as radioactive waste) they are sealed in tight steal drums and are safely hidden away deep underground in remote areas sealed off by fences and surrounded with warnings. And people are constantly thinking up better ways of getting rid of the stuff.

Then how did the land around that nickel processing plant in ontario from the H3/prius thread become more barren and lifeless than any other place on earth?

Why don't you show me the nickel processing plants that are doing this the right way? Heck, why doesn't toyota find those plants to buy their NiCD batteries from?

You call asking people if they love Earth, "raising a stink"?

Who do you think you're fooling? Did you start this thread in the PWL just to ask people if they love the earth? Do you think when marden starts a thread to ask people if they "love America" he really just wants to know what people think about their love and/or lack of it for America? Drop the "smokescreen," it's pathetic.

Let me get this straight... People would not be ignoring and "disbelieving" global warming if they weren't told about it? People would not be destroying rainforests if environmentalists didn't tell them not to do it?

No, people wouldn't be actively against all things "global warming" if they weren't being pestered about it so much.

And "environmentalists telling them not to" is not being very effective at stopping the rainforests from being destroyed.

I'm here to tell you to simply be aware of the fact that you love Earth. Everyone loves Earth.

So you start off with the premise that everyone who disagrees with you is simply too stupid to know they're wrong, and you proceed to patronize them by asking a blatantly obvious smokescreen question with no intention of listening to their honest answers. Did you ever consider the fact that you might be wrong? Did you?

They might not be consciously aware of this love, but if you sit down and talk it over with them, they will all realize/remember that they love Earth. Then I point out to them that their actions to Earth seem consistent with those of someone who hates Earth.

That's what we call creating animosity among people about global warming.

My opponents, it seems, do not even understand what they're objecting to as demonstrated by this response of yours, asking me, what is it that I'm doing.

I know what you're doing, you're pestering people about the environment. I was asking what it is you think you're doing. I'll try to rephrase, if someone were to read your thread and be completely and instantly won over, what would they do? What reaction of theirs would be your goal? Stop driving a car? Stop eating meat? Stop driving a care "more than necessary?" Stop driving a car "enough to stop global warming?" All of the above? What?

In other words, "to stop all things that will lead to the demise of mankind."

Anything, done to excess, will lead to the demise of mankind. What exactly are you talking about?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok, I guess all the battery manufacturers who currently pump out pollution only do so because they are ignorant about the process of manufacturing batteries. Good point.

Twisty spinny fantasy
Thy name is Uncle Skeleton
Respond to his inquiry
And watch him speak of gelatin

How many times have you heard of manufacturing planets dumping waste from the manufacturing process into rivers in order to save money? I said:

Originally Posted by itistoday

it could easily have been that that plant was not properly disposing of materials when it could have. People do that sometimes, you know, to save money.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Then how did the land around that nickel processing plant in ontario from the H3/prius thread become more barren and lifeless than any other place on earth?

Originally Posted by itistoday

it could easily have been that that plant was not properly disposing of materials when it could have. People do that sometimes, you know, to save money.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Why don't you show me the nickel processing plants that are doing this the right way? Heck, why doesn't toyota find those plants to buy their NiCD batteries from?

It's rather difficult to find the policies of specific manufacturing plants, but just quick googling revealed:

NiCd batteries contain cadmium, which is a toxic heavy metal and therefore requires special care during battery disposal. In the United States, part of the price of a NiCd battery is a fee for its proper disposal at the end of its service lifetime. In the European Union, the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) bans the use of cadmium in electrical and electronic equipment products after July 2006, though NiCd batteries are not restricted.

Cadmium, being a heavy metal, can cause substantial pollution when landfilled or incinerated. Because of this, many countries now operate recycling programs to capture and reprocess old NiCd batteries.

Nickel-cadmium battery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cadmium strongly adsorbs to organic matter in soils. When cadmium is present in soils it can be extremely dangerous, as the uptake through food will increase. Soils that are acidified enhance the cadmium uptake by plants. This is a potential danger to the animals that are dependent upon the plants for survival. Cadmium can accumulate in their bodies, especially when they eat multiple plants. Cows may have large amounts of cadmium in their kidneys due to this.


Cadmium (Cd) - Chemical properties, Health and Environmental effects

Industrial emissions are now tightly controlled due to the significant improvement in pollution control technology and to strict regulation and legislation, particularly in the metals industry.

The problems of incinerating waste containing cadmium can be solved using existing best available technology to capture more than 99% of incinerator fume emissions.

All the information on Cadmium

Now, as much as I searched I could not find the cost of properly disposing of Cadmium, but from these sources we know a few things:

1) In the manufacturing of Nickel batteries at that plant, Cadmium seems to be the most toxic chemical used
2) Cadmium is known to cause devastation if it gets into soil
3) We know and have the technology for disposing of it properly and for recycling it

From this, what educated conclusions can me make about the plant in Canada? Well, it seems very likely that they screwed up somehow. Either it was an accident or they intentionally did not dispose of it properly to save costs.

What's this... hah! From a comment in the article about the plant:

Originally Posted by Chris Johnson

Much, if not all, of the damage shown in your photo would have happened prior to 1972. In 1994 upgrades were completed that remove roughly 90% of the sulphur dioxide. While the ongoing polution at that plant is shameful, I think it shouldn't link specifically the Prius with that devistation. The NiCads we used in our toys as kids are probably more to blame for those black rocks.

Well, that explains it. I think we can say case closed.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Who do you think you're fooling? Did you start this thread in the PWL just to ask people if they love the earth? Do you think when marden starts a thread to ask people if they "love America" he really just wants to know what people think about their love and/or lack of it for America? Drop the "smokescreen," it's pathetic.

This was supposed to be a dialogue between me and those who did not vote "Yes". We're currently having that dialogue.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, people wouldn't be actively against all things "global warming" if they weren't being pestered about it so much.

There's that straw man again...

Originally Posted by itistoday

People would not be ignoring and "disbelieving" global warming if they weren't told about it?

The people in question are those who did not believe in global warming from the start.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And "environmentalists telling them not to" is not being very effective at stopping the rainforests from being destroyed.

Wow. I think I'll just leave you and your straw man alone to work this out. Perhaps somebody else will point out the flaw in what you just said, I tire of this crap.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So you start off with the premise that everyone who disagrees with you is simply too stupid to know they're wrong,

I said "forgot". Never called anyone "too stupid", nor did I imply that, sorry if you and your straw man see it that way.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

and you proceed to patronize them by asking a blatantly obvious smokescreen question with no intention of listening to their honest answers. Did you ever consider the fact that you might be wrong? Did you?

Wrong about what? Wrong that they love Earth? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here... go read the OP, you'd have to be crazy not to love Earth. I could be wrong though you're right, there might be crazy people here.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's what we call creating animosity among people about global warming.

"Straw man, how I love thee," whispered Uncle Skeleton to his stuffed friend.

Never mentioned anything about global warming there pal, what you highlighted in bold there has nothing to do with global warming. I won't repeat myself anymore.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I know what you're doing, you're pestering people about the environment.

If that's how you and your strawman friend see it, there's little I can do about it beyond what I've already said.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'll try to rephrase, if someone were to read your thread and be completely and instantly won over, what would they do? What reaction of theirs would be your goal? Stop driving a car? Stop eating meat? Stop driving a care "more than necessary?" Stop driving a car "enough to stop global warming?" All of the above? What?

My goal is to get them to remember two things (as I've stated): 1) for them to remember that they love Earth, and 2) why they love it.

Anything beyond that is merely a discussion of that relationship, but I think that once they're aware of 1 and 2, I won't need to say or convince them of anything else, they will make the right decisions themselves. When you realize you love your mom and that she is your lifeline, you make sure to take care of her and not try and kill her right? Naturally that will follow from a real love of Earth.

So lets recap (as you seem to require concepts to be repeated back to you several times): I want everyone to remember (or realize) that they love Earth, and why they do. That's it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Anything, done to excess, will lead to the demise of mankind. What exactly are you talking about?

How am I to respond to this? I say something, it doesn't seem ambiguous at all, then you ask me what I'm talking about... should I just quote that little conversation again...? I'm not going to try and figure out what's going on inside your head at this point because I don't know if you're actually interested in having a serious conversation or are just pulling my leg.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

To sum up this thread: you are all pussies who have never dragged a bloody seal carcass across sea-ice with a pick.

I win. Teh end.

greg

[smacintush]

I've always hated the term "The Environment". The way it's used it almost needs a ™ after it.

It's as if "The Environment" is supposed to be some-thing that is out there the needs caring for like a lost kitten.

At the risk of getting "too mystical" for some of you, I think that there are a lot of people who are out of touch. They don't really feel that they are one with the world they live in. It's apparent in our terminology. We live "on" the Earth, we "came into" this world (from where?), we "leave" this world (where are you going again?). As a great American philosopher once asked: "Are you a bird alighting on the branches of an apple tree or are you one of the apples?"

It's obvious in the way that the term "The Environment' is batted about that the enviroweenies and the liberal elite are just as disconnected with their world as it really is as those who they accuse of destroying it.

But to answer the question more directly. I don't really know if "The Environment" is something to be respected or loved. I believe it is something to be enjoyed. Not enjoyed in the way a little boy "enjoys" ants with a magnifying glass, but enjoyed for what it is and not exploited. If love respect is what grows out of that then great.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Didn't you read my post? I already won, dude.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

The people in question are those who did not believe in global warming from the start.

What does it matter if they believe or not, when there's nothing they can do about it?

Wrong about what? Wrong that they love Earth? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here... go read the OP, you'd have to be crazy not to love Earth. I could be wrong though you're right, there might be crazy people here.

Did you ever consider that you're wrong about anything? 1, some people don't love their mothers; lots of people. 2, people might be "loving" the earth and still *gasp* polluting; in fact, you're one of them, by using computers and the internet you are incurring some pollution. It's all a matter of degree, a notion I have been trying to pound into your head from the start. And 3, I don't even think "love" is a word that applies here, outside of your "eco-weenie" fantasy world. Just because, as you say, I require the earth and nature in order to survive, doesn't give those things a "back-door" into my "love." I require iron to survive, but I don't "love" iron. I require (indirectly) the putrid decay of rotting flesh, but I certainly don't "love" that stuff. Your whole construction here is sickeningly patronizing. The ideas that you already know what everyone "loves" and that they need you to remind them of it are both annoying and counterproductive. And don't tell me this had nothing to do with global warming; there have been 5 threads about global warming in here at any one time in the last 2 months. Even if you were too slow to know your own thread was about global warming, that was the implication.*


*irony intended.

Anything beyond that is merely a discussion of that relationship, but I think that once they're aware of 1 and 2, I won't need to say or convince them of anything else, they will make the right decisions themselves.

What are the "right decisions?" Does it have anything to do with actions, or anything beyond giving patronizing answers to people who ask me if I "love" inanimate objects?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What does it matter if they believe or not, when there's nothing they can do about it?



Did you ever consider that you're wrong about anything? 1, some people don't love their mothers; lots of people. 2, people might be "loving" the earth and still *gasp* polluting; in fact, you're one of them, by using computers and the internet you are incurring some pollution. It's all a matter of degree, a notion I have been trying to pound into your head from the start. And 3, I don't even think "love" is a word that applies here, outside of your "eco-weenie" fantasy world. Just because, as you say, I require the earth and nature in order to survive, doesn't give those things a "back-door" into my "love." I require iron to survive, but I don't "love" iron. I require (indirectly) the putrid decay of rotting flesh, but I certainly don't "love" that stuff. Your whole construction here is sickeningly patronizing. The ideas that you already know what everyone "loves" and that they need you to remind them of it are both annoying and counterproductive. And don't tell me this had nothing to do with global warming; there have been 5 threads about global warming in here at any one time in the last 2 months. Even if you were too slow to know your own thread was about global warming, that was the implication.*


*irony intended.




What are the "right decisions?" Does it have anything to do with actions, or anything beyond giving patronizing answers to people who ask me if I "love" inanimate objects?

Its no use. When he gets called on arguments he just reverts to name calling and dishonest accusations.

He started this thread to force people who do not share his views to share his views. When he cannot support his arguments he throws a hissy fit and does not produce a valid counter-point, and everyone reading this should easily pick up on that.

His views are not logically consistent. See my above post for prime examples.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Didn't you read my post? I already won, dude.

LAWL!

[itistoday]

Uncle Skeleton, you probably already do, but just in case you don't, please read this entire post all the way through before you begin responding to it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What does it matter if they believe or not, when there's nothing they can do about it?

It matters because there is something they can do about it.

If no consumers cared about global warming, companies would have no incentive to provide environmentally friendly products to them. In a capitalist economy, consumers have a significant amount of power over what companies produce.

Likewise, in a democratic country the people directly affect the government's policies and decisions. Therefore if the constituents are concerned about global warming, so too will the government be.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Did you ever consider that you're wrong about anything? 1, some people don't love their mothers; lots of people.

I'm fully aware of that. There are really only two main instances when someone does not love their mother: when their mother failed to properly take care of them, or in the case that person is simply crazy. In the OP, I said that my love of the Earth is the same kind of love as that love you have for a caring mother. Now, there are rare cases when a person truly wishes that they were never born into this world in the first place. Those people, I'm willing to admit, probably don't and will not love Earth unless they decide that they do in fact want to live. When I wrote the OP, I did not take that possibility into account and I assumed that everyone here on MacNN has the desire to live, please accept my most sincere apologies if that was too rash of an assumption to make. So let me rephrase, I believe that everyone who has the desire to live has the capability of loving Earth, and if they don't already love Earth, all I think it takes is a little chat to change their minds. Why? Because if you want to live, what is it that gives you that ability? Your environment! What is that environment? Earth! No Earth, no you.

Now, you might argue that there might exist children whose parents loved and took good care of them, and yet the child still hates his parents guts. I've only seen such children in cartoons (Stewie from Family Guy comes to mind). However, if this is what you're going to resort to to "prove" that not everyone has in them the capacity to love Earth... well... you're on shaky ground there. At that point your argument really doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

2, people might be "loving" the earth and still *gasp* polluting; in fact, you're one of them, by using computers and the internet you are incurring some pollution.

Do you have problems reading? Where in this thread did I ever say the contrary? You really do love strawmen.

Originally Posted by itistoday

I never called an end to all pollution. That is physically impossible.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

And 3, I don't even think "love" is a word that applies here, outside of your "eco-weenie" fantasy world. Just because, as you say, I require the earth and nature in order to survive, doesn't give those things a "back-door" into my "love." I require iron to survive, but I don't "love" iron. I require (indirectly) the putrid decay of rotting flesh, but I certainly don't "love" that stuff.

I'll say it again: you have created a fantasy for yourself out of this debate we're having. You are not comprehending what I am saying. This means you need to discard the fantasy that is in your head, put down your straw men, and listen to what your opponent in this debate is saying his argument is. Otherwise you are arguing with yourself and the ecoweenie bandits in your head, which would justifiably make you a lunatic.

Let me try answering this point of yours with a series of questions:

Supposing that you have a wife or a girlfriend whom you love, do you love the nose hairs inside her nostrils? Do you have feelings of affection for the beads of sweat that form in her glands? Do you write love letters to her toe nails?

I will await your answer but for the moment, to continue this point, I will assume that your answer is "no" to those questions. So let me ask you another one: What is it you love then? You might respond, correctly: "I love my wife!" Yes, but I don't see what you're talking about, can you point her out to me? "She's right there!" (You point to your wife). Ah ha, I see you're pointing to this brown thing that people call a freckle, so you love this freckle? "NO!!" Heh, "Ohhhhhhh..." I suddenly realize what you're saying, "You mean you love your wife!"

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Your whole construction here is sickeningly patronizing. The ideas that you already know what everyone "loves" and that they need you to remind them of it are both annoying and counterproductive.

It may seem that way, but I think it's something that people must realize. A family goes to a psychologist to discuss their misbehaving son. The psychologist asks the child, "Do you love your mommy?" "NO! I hate my mommy!" The psychologist discovers that this is no ordinary family, should the child be separated from his mother, or should she die, so too will the child. Should the psychologist leave it at and ask for his money? Or should he help the child to learn to love his mother and create a healthy and happy family? If the psychologist decides to get the child to love his mother, will you call his actions, "sickeningly patronizing"?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

And don't tell me this had nothing to do with global warming; there have been 5 threads about global warming in here at any one time in the last 2 months.

It's silly of you to say that as I was not the one who started them. But yes, I have already told you that this thread has everything to do with preventing the demise of humanity, global warming is one of the many things that will lead to that if left unchecked.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

What are the "right decisions?"

What happens when you love someone? How do you treat them? Do you pay attention to what they say? Do you listen to their problems? Do you ignore these problems?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Does it have anything to do with actions, or anything beyond giving patronizing answers to people who ask me if I "love" inanimate objects?

The Earth is the farthest thing from an "inanimate object." If you really believe that, it just shows how much help you need.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

It matters because there is something they can do about it.

One minute you say this thread isn't about asking people to do something, the next it is. I could tell from the first post, but apparently you couldn't...

Now maybe we can get somewhere though. Surely if people are supposed to do something about it, in this case pressure companies and legislators to in turn do something else, there must be some goal, some...thing... that these companies and legislators should be being pressured to do. Now it might shock and delight you to realize it, but this... thing... is exactly what I've been asking you to identify. After all, how can one pressure the powers that be to do something if one doesn't even know what that thing is. For all we know, that thing might already be being done! For christ sakes, that thing may be as simple as creating all the new and wonderful technologies you recently promised me will be on the road in a scant 5 years! If that's the case, then why are you bothering to have this discussion?

In the OP, I said that my love of the Earth is the same kind of love as that love you have for a caring mother.

For those privileged individuals who are well taken care of in life, who own computers and post on MacNN, the Earth is one caring mother indeed. For those who have a tough shake in life, who have trouble finding shelter from the elements each night, the Earth may seem like a deceitful bitch who doesn't deserve all that much gratitude. Who the hell are you to tell me what to feel about it?

So let me rephrase, I believe that everyone who has the desire to live has the capability of loving Earth, and if they don't already love Earth, all I think it takes is a little chat to change their minds.

There's that delightful arrogance of yours again. If someone disagrees with you, how do you know a little chat won't change your mind?

I'll give you a taste. The Earth with all its bounty and all its hazards gives us a heck of a time sometimes. Hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes... The only reason we don't completely remold it into something more habitable, more stable, more bountiful and less horrible, is out of sheer pragmatism. We can't. For now.

It has nothing to do with "love," and if you think that "love" can be deduced and reasoned with, and "proven," with nothing more than a "little chat" from itistoday, then you have a pretty weak idea of what love is, and I pity you for it.

Now, you might argue that there might exist children whose parents loved and took good care of them, and yet the child still hates his parents guts.

And I might argue that the full gambit of human emotion and intellect is more diverse than a simple binary duology of two absolutes.

everyone has in them the capacity to love Earth...

Ah, there's a new twist. I thought you said you were trying to "remind" everyone to love the earth. Now it seems you might be trying to "compel" everyone, to activate their innate capacity. Are you trying to change their minds, and force them to "love" the Earth?

Do you have problems reading? Where in this thread did I ever say the contrary? You really do love strawmen.

*sigh* Ok, let me try to get you to explain your position. The current level of pollution is "too much" (correct?). Zero pollution is not enough (or at least, that's not what you'd have). What level is "just right?" How would you know when that level is reached, and how can you tell we're not at it right now?

I'll take a wild guess and say you might not be able to answer that without some kind of love-related analogy, so here goes. I have a mother. Sometimes she benefits me with her "natural resources." She cooks and cleans, buys me gifts, does my taxes, etc. You can think of this as pollution; these are things which tax her strength, and benefit me. Clearly she is capable of doing a certain amount of work for me, but some greater amount of work is "too much." If I love her, how do I know how much work to ask of her? Now suppose I guess too low, and evaluate her to be far weaker than she is. Should I look out the window to see my brother, asking more of her, not so much that our mother is overwhelmed, but more than I mistakenly think she can handle, I would be inclined to think that my brother is exploiting her, and all he needs to do is be "reminded" of his love for her and he'll stop. Meanwhile, back in reality, he is right and I am wrong. Has it ever occurred to you that you are wrong, itistoday? How would you find out?

If the psychologist decides to get the child to love his mother, will you call his actions, "sickeningly patronizing"?

No, and you know why? Because the family decided to go to the psychologist. If the psychologist in your story was not a real psychologist, but just some random joker on the subway who observed the family and took it upon himself to "solve" their problems unsolicited, then yes he would be "sickeningly patronizing." Which character fits you better?

What happens when you love someone? How do you treat them? Do you pay attention to what they say? Do you listen to their problems? Do you ignore these problems?

Have you ever heard the term "you only hurt the ones you love?"

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

One minute you say this thread isn't about asking people to do something, the next it is. I could tell from the first post, but apparently you couldn't...

You're just nitpicking right now over irrelevant semantics; I said from the start that this thread was about loving Earth and what follows from that:

Originally Posted by itistoday

But yes, I have already told you that this thread has everything to do with preventing the demise of humanity, global warming is one of the many things that will lead to that if left unchecked.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Now maybe we can get somewhere though. Surely if people are supposed to do something about it, in this case pressure companies and legislators to in turn do something else, there must be some goal, some...thing... that these companies and legislators should be being pressured to do. Now it might shock and delight you to realize it, but this... thing... is exactly what I've been asking you to identify. After all, how can one pressure the powers that be to do something if one doesn't even know what that thing is. For all we know, that thing might already be being done! For christ sakes, that thing may be as simple as creating all the new and wonderful technologies you recently promised me will be on the road in a scant 5 years! If that's the case, then why are you bothering to have this discussion?

You are quite right that some companies are starting to care. Most are still aloof to the whole issue though. Let's take the example of Virgin. It took Gore's "sickeningly patronizing" badgering to spur Virgin CEO Richard Branson into action. So yes, pressure and nagging from environmentalists is essential to getting laws passed, and companies motivated into action.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

For those privileged individuals who are well taken care of in life, who own computers and post on MacNN, the Earth is one caring mother indeed. For those who have a tough shake in life, who have trouble finding shelter from the elements each night, the Earth may seem like a deceitful bitch who doesn't deserve all that much gratitude. Who the hell are you to tell me what to feel about it?

Yes, it's not as if this didn't occur to me when I started the thread. It doesn't matter how bad your life is, if you want to live, then you have Earth to thank for that ability. People like Hermit get it:

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).

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There's that delightful arrogance of yours again. If someone disagrees with you, how do you know a little chat won't change your mind?

I'll give you a taste. The Earth with all its bounty and all its hazards gives us a heck of a time sometimes. Hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes... The only reason we don't completely remold it into something more habitable, more stable, more bountiful and less horrible, is out of sheer pragmatism. We can't. For now.

It's not like I disagree with that, you're simply saying replace our current mother with a better one. However, I don't think you comprehend the difficulty in doing that. It's not just "sheer pragmatism", even if we did have the technology, we would be hard pressed to create a "better Earth", after all, some of the "instability" you show could very well be a good thing. Anyways, all of this is irrelevant to loving the Earth we're currently living in. Loving this Earth and trying to improve it are not mutually exclusive ideas, in fact they are very compatible.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It has nothing to do with "love," and if you think that "love" can be deduced and reasoned with, and "proven," with nothing more than a "little chat" from itistoday, then you have a pretty weak idea of what love is, and I pity you for it.

I never said it could be "proven". But you are mistaken if you think that "love" is purely irrational. Why do you love your mother? Why do you love your wife? Why don't you love ___? Are you telling me that you can't give me concrete reasons? You are right though when you say that a "little chat" with me won't change many bigoted people's minds. However, it certainly doesn't hurt to try, after all, even the most racist of individuals can be reformed. I say, if you want to be racist, that's fine, just don't go around hurting others because of that, when they start doing that it's time to step in and intervene.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ah, there's a new twist. I thought you said you were trying to "remind" everyone to love the earth. Now it seems you might be trying to "compel" everyone, to activate their innate capacity. Are you trying to change their minds, and force them to "love" the Earth?

Word games. Yes, I am trying to change their minds; no, I'm not trying to force them to love Earth. That is, again, impossible. I detect a theme in your responses... accuse me of saying something I am not... there's a word for that tactic...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

*sigh* Ok, let me try to get you to explain your position. The current level of pollution is "too much" (correct?). Zero pollution is not enough (or at least, that's not what you'd have). What level is "just right?" How would you know when that level is reached, and how can you tell we're not at it right now?

Without even answering that question, let me ask you, what is your point in asking that? If, hypothetically, I can't tell one way or the other what should I do? Should I try and protect the planet? "No!" You cry, that would be over exerting yourself for no reason! Should I do nothing? "No!" What if doing nothing could lead to humanity's destruction (as it likely will)?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Meanwhile, back in reality, he is right and I am wrong. Has it ever occurred to you that you are wrong, itistoday? How would you find out?

The answer: "Get the facts, ma'am", and do the best with the information we are given.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, and you know why? Because the family decided to go to the psychologist. If the psychologist in your story was not a real psychologist, but just some random joker on the subway who observed the family and took it upon himself to "solve" their problems unsolicited, then yes he would be "sickeningly patronizing." Which character fits you better?

Heh, I would say that the "random joker" would fit me better if that were the actual situation. The truth is that the analogy isn't apt. In reality, the "random joker on the subway" is a member of the family himself, so of course he has a say. Actually I commend you for coming up with the much more accurate example of the two brothers and the mother, for "we are all Earth's children," as corny as that sounds it is true, so her health is relevant to us all, and if a group of us is convinced that the evidence says that we are killing her, and in doing so kill "us" as well, then it's perfectly fine for us to step in and do something about it. And if we are positive (and correct (objective), which in reality we are not), that the Earth is dying, then even the use of force is justifiable (that is a different idea altogether though, irrelevant to our conversation as it does not reflect reality).

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Have you ever heard the term "you only hurt the ones you love?"

Yes I have and that is a wise observation on your part. Sometimes the right thing to do is to let go of the ones you love and let them lead their course through life, however again, that is not the situation we are faced with right now. Right now the evidence says that there is a high risk of us making the planet uninhabitable for humans, and that the very nature of the problem prevents us from waiting to be certain of that because by that time it will be too late.

Now, that's all global warming talk. The point of this thread is to discuss the love of Earth and what that means. The right kind of love too as you just pointed out, the kind were you let go in the right situations, and protect in the others. Metaphysically speaking, you and your environment are not separate, so loving yourself is equivalent to loving your environment. We can get into that if you want.

[ebuddy]

Yes. I love the environment. I can see it better now when the top is down in my jeep wrangler. I finally got one. Woohoo!!!