Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 67
  1. #16

    Default

    I don't know if people as a whole do but I personally feel that I do simply because I want my children and grandchildren to be able to see that same beautiful landscapes, natural wonders and rainforests I have seen. I will always fight for that but for people that don't travel to these places or don't leave their neighborhoods I can understand why it wouldn't really matter to them. There are some people out there that care about things they haven't experienced or seen with their own eyes but not many.

    I will say that I believe every parent out there has an obligation to try their hardest to ensure that the world they leave their children with is better than the world they grew up in though.
    Last edited by doomahx; 07-12-2012 at 14:31.

  2. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanno View Post
    Girlyman pretty much nailed all the points I'd raise on this issue. To the extent it is beneficial to us, we should steward nature; restoring it to some mythical past is sentimental new age hippie bullshit.
    I did not at all imply that we ought to restore everything so the land is primarily natural. I did mean to imply we ought to restore biomes and communities so that they have stability and without human interference.

    The case of the wolf, for example, is remarkbly unstable since we both hunt their pray and annihilate/drive them off the land. This results in rabbits or deer or etc. experiencing fluctuating populations that are prone to cause wider instabilities. This is the case with us destroying other top predators like the tiger.

    If one understands the natural world, its whole idea revolves around an equilibrium with progressive changes, and one where we serve it "to our ends" or some bullshit cannot do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by GirlyMan View Post
    Preserve it as it once was? Like, when? When the entire earth was covered with ice, when the entire earth was a jungle, when the earth was one continent?
    No, why would you imply I meant that? I referred to preserving it so its in a stable, as was type of environment. IE, when we didn't drive off every wild animal except ones we can hunt from the eastern North American land mass.

    I'm not following you. We change the earth very subtly and the earth changes itself dramatically. In the long run we should be concerned about the earth changing us. In the meantime, the proven benefits of nature (soil health, consequences you mentioned) are good enough reason to not be stupid or we face not only endangering animal species but ourselves as well, as you mentioned.
    The earth changes itself very slowly, and not very dramatically at all. Holocene extinctions are quite remarkable and have drastic effects.

    In say two hundred years, we have altered our environment much more beyond what has ever happened in a hundred thousand years. Consider for example, the case of mountain gorillas, where we have driven to the verge of extinction out of both illegal foresting and formerly due to prejudices.

    Or for that matter, the millions of passenger pigeons which use to darken our eastern seaboard skies, of which was wiped out quite easily due to the easiness of killing them.

    Ice ages are good cases of remarkable change, but they are slow and inevitable, whereas our "subtle changes" are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    This pretty much. As much as is feasible and practical.

    Disclaimer: Did not read a single word of the OP, too many words and too little time.
    "Feasible and practical" though sounds like a rational idea, but nonetheless if you mean feasible and practical in say, in so far as it does not hurt economic growth its irrational.

    If by feasible and practical with the intent to restore sustainable environments without human intervention than it is.

  3. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nate4449 View Post
    Any conception of an unchanging, eternally stagnant global ecosystem in need of protection is a fabrication made by men looking to fill their need for self importance with a world that revolves around their otherwise meaningless existence.
    You can't seem to read very well. Most people here already accept basic evolutionary/geographic principles of animals and populations as well as environments changing.

    Life, and the world as we know it exists without purpose. Why bother preserving the environment when you will be dead long before mankind loses the ability to survive on earth?
    What's your point? Because you believe it has no man-made purpose, means it has no functional purpose? I already clarified that preservation of the natural world and let it run its course is our duty if we are to accept our inherently naturalistic, atheist and animal conception of ourselves.

    Even still, why not attribute this to yet another great and mystical cycle of life? In a few billion years, the sun will have imparted enough energy into the surface matter to produce new life and start a new cycle here on earth, if not elsewhere.
    In a few trillion years, the universe might end. So why bother doing anything ever for all time?

  4. #19

    Default

    My Name Is Strawberry And I Do Not Understand How Titles Should Be Capitalized.
    Quote Originally Posted by Exevos View Post
    nacitar has never used any (to my knowledge) exploit maneuvers, glitches, and/or bugs... He has always been adamant in his ways, ... having been totally legit since launch, a feat many of us have failed.

  5. #20
    13,000+
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Swing Approves
    Posts
    13,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abaratican View Post
    My Name Is Strawberry And I Do Not Understand How Titles Should Be Capitalized.
    Hi Strawberry
    The Swing - IMMORTALS
    Class: Swing
    Roles: 1) Swing Approves
    2) JUST AS PLANNED
    3) No u
    4) Faka you mutha

  6. #21
    5000+ GirlyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    5,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StrawberryClock View Post
    I did not at all imply that we ought to restore everything so the land is primarily natural. I did mean to imply we ought to restore biomes and communities so that they have stability and without human interference.

    The case of the wolf, for example, is remarkbly unstable since we both hunt their pray and annihilate/drive them off the land. This results in rabbits or deer or etc. experiencing fluctuating populations that are prone to cause wider instabilities. This is the case with us destroying other top predators like the tiger.

    If one understands the natural world, its whole idea revolves around an equilibrium with progressive changes, and one where we serve it "to our ends" or some bullshit cannot do that.



    No, why would you imply I meant that? I referred to preserving it so its in a stable, as was type of environment. IE, when we didn't drive off every wild animal except ones we can hunt from the eastern North American land mass.



    The earth changes itself very slowly, and not very dramatically at all. Holocene extinctions are quite remarkable and have drastic effects.

    In say two hundred years, we have altered our environment much more beyond what has ever happened in a hundred thousand years. Consider for example, the case of mountain gorillas, where we have driven to the verge of extinction out of both illegal foresting and formerly due to prejudices.

    Or for that matter, the millions of passenger pigeons which use to darken our eastern seaboard skies, of which was wiped out quite easily due to the easiness of killing them.

    Ice ages are good cases of remarkable change, but they are slow and inevitable, whereas our "subtle changes" are not.

    Humans are hunters. So are animals. Both carry disease. If clearing out the woods means removing 90% of the mosquitoes then it's a good thing. If a few types of animals suffer as a result then so be it.

    (wantonly) Killing animals is bad but letting people die for the sake of a few animals is worse. More animals have gone extinct before humans ever existed.

    There's a reason tribes that live in jungles don't branch out very well. People just don't thrive in jungles. You can't really farm in a jungle, either. Animals will eat the crops, the crops will be starved of light etc.

    The problem with the earth is sure, it may do very little for a hundred thousand years. When it does something, things go extinct. The earth doesn't love us and neither do it's creatures.

    I think you're overestimating how much damage we actually do. The BP oil spill was pretty terrible but the earth will recover from that.. and that was an accident.

    When we build cities, pretty much every animal that is capable of attacking children leave. That's what we call a good thing.
    Last edited by GirlyMan; 07-12-2012 at 16:58.

  7. #22

    Default

    so it's ok that they're clearing acres full of 100-200 year old oak trees and building houses that sit empty for years with for sale signs in front of them?

    would you support an interstellar species coming to earth and driving humans from their homes?

    why should we place a higher value on human life than animal life? has nobody lived with an animal that seems capable of rational thought and interaction?

    most people would rather take the easy route than to do what is right, with no regard for other species and the future of the earth

  8. #23
    5000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,033

    Default

    For example, I don't think companies should be allowed to basically treat third world countries as their garbage disposals

  9. #24
    1000+
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    1,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StrawberryClock View Post
    You can't seem to read very well. Most people here already accept basic evolutionary/geographic principles of animals and populations as well as environments changing.
    Sorry, I was monologuing.


    Quote Originally Posted by StrawberryClock View Post
    What's your point? Because you believe it has no man-made purpose, means it has no functional purpose? I already clarified that preservation of the natural world and let it run its course is our duty if we are to accept our inherently naturalistic, atheist and animal conception of ourselves.
    You have arbitrarily assigned to yourself a duty to protect the world for future generations, whom would otherwise not exist if you were to extinguish the environment. This sort of thinking is fueled by primitive instinct and emotion. Which is fine, if you knowingly choose to embrace it, but utterly silly if you expect to impose it upon other sentient beings.


    Quote Originally Posted by StrawberryClock View Post
    In a few trillion years, the universe might end. So why bother doing anything ever for all time?
    Thank you for illustrating the pointlessness of temporarily preserving the particular arrangement of matter and life forms that inhabit various portions of our speck of dust in the universe. To argue that any of mankind's efforts will impart any sort of lasting legacy upon the universe is humorous at best.

    There is not a single ounce of meaning behind this rock that we happened to materialize on, so do with the world what you will, or at least what you can. I like to play Minecraft.

  10. #25

    Default

    Until society accepts that you just cant keep spitting out babies just because you feel like it.. nothing will change.

    When the civilized world stops rewarding people for reproducing and we stop subsidizing the breeding habits of third world countries nothing will change.

  11. #26
    1000+
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StrawberryClock View Post
    Say, in the case of the amiable elephant, or the peaceful yet terrifying gorilla, two animals that have been on the verge of extinction largely driven by caused human social problems.

    Yada Yada.
    You are misguided, young padawan. The issue is very simple. It's not about "preservation", it's about improvement. We are not making Earth a better place for future generations.

    Since we have been doing so shitty at making Earth a better place some of our fellow humans have, sarcastically I assume - but nevertheless pragmatically as well, put forth the idea of preservation. If we can't make a better world, the least we could is not make it worse.

    To put it in your words, gorillas, elephants, trees etc. are not needed as there isn't really anything special about their ecosystem. It's just we don't know how to make a better one.

    Until our technology advances and we can make a high tech world that uses and recycles all resources with perfect efficiency, mother nature is all we got.
    Last edited by Hydrogenium; 07-13-2012 at 04:01.

  12. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo Hobgoblin View Post
    Until society accepts that you just cant keep spitting out babies just because you feel like it.. nothing will change.

    When the civilized world stops rewarding people for reproducing and we stop subsidizing the breeding habits of third world countries nothing will change.
    Good luck with that in a system that requires exponential growth for it to function.

  13. #28
    5000+ GirlyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    5,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatdane View Post
    so it's ok that they're clearing acres full of 100-200 year old oak trees and building houses that sit empty for years with for sale signs in front of them?
    Yes. What does an age of a tree have to do with anything? You know that trees can grow pretty much anywhere on earth? We can actually replant forests.

    (No, I don't think anyone would really support that but that scenario seems a bit unrealistic to me)

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatdane View Post
    would you support an interstellar species coming to earth and driving humans from their homes?
    I wouldn't support them but if that's what they want to do then whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatdane View Post
    why should we place a higher value on human life than animal life? has nobody lived with an animal that seems capable of rational thought and interaction?
    Really? In the real world animals carry disease and attack people for very little reason at all. Just because some chimp in a zoo will hold hand doesn't mean a chimp in the wild won't tear your face off because it doesn't like the colour of your shoes.. or even the one in the zoo that's holding your hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatdane View Post
    most people would rather take the easy route than to do what is right, with no regard for other species and the future of the earth
    That's just not true. I capture spiders, flies that get into the house and release them outside. I don't like the way humans are polluting but I'm not against civilization, either. Unfortunately I'm not in charge but the people in charge are starting the realize the impact of pollution.
    Last edited by GirlyMan; 07-13-2012 at 06:42.

  14. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GirlyMan View Post
    Humans are hunters. So are animals. Both carry disease. If clearing out the woods means removing 90% of the mosquitoes then it's a good thing. If a few types of animals suffer as a result then so be it.

    (wantonly) Killing animals is bad but letting people die for the sake of a few animals is worse. More animals have gone extinct before humans ever existed.
    Killing mosquitoes is pointless and has greater implications, and wiping out one or two species disrupts entire chains. As I already mentioned in say, wiping out middle species, one causes a flourishing and a crash in their food, while starving out those who prey on them. Nature has always been functional only at an equilibrium.

    The problem with the earth is sure, it may do very little for a hundred thousand years. When it does something, things go extinct. The earth doesn't love us and neither do it's creatures.
    What's your point? That we must destroy it because its cold and bitter?

    I think you're overestimating how much damage we actually do. The BP oil spill was pretty terrible but the earth will recover from that.. and that was an accident.

    When we build cities, pretty much every animal that is capable of attacking children leave. That's what we call a good thing.
    You are underestimating it. Mankind has been responsible for the destruction of countless unique fauna and flora. And this only naturally gets worst. Buffalos, beavers and wolves, for example, once roamed plenty in the wilds of Europe, but were eventually hunted to extinction. This is not minimal, since it caused outrageous population spikes and instabilities that took many years to settle.

    Thankfully, Europe has embraced what America cannot, and has devoted effort and resources to restoring its once proud species to the wilds, and ceased to sprawl urban areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by nate4449 View Post
    Sorry, I was monologuing.

    You have arbitrarily assigned to yourself a duty to protect the world for future generations, whom would otherwise not exist if you were to extinguish the environment. This sort of thinking is fueled by primitive instinct and emotion. Which is fine, if you knowingly choose to embrace it, but utterly silly if you expect to impose it upon other sentient beings.
    If you do not believe that somehow "species preservation" isn't a natural tendency, nor a logical position to take than you are daft.

    You can go ahead and believe only living for yourself is worthy, but that leads nowhere and quickly dissipates once you approach death.

    Thank you for illustrating the pointlessness of temporarily preserving the particular arrangement of matter and life forms that inhabit various portions of our speck of dust in the universe. To argue that any of mankind's efforts will impart any sort of lasting legacy upon the universe is humorous at best.
    No-one cares about "lasting effort", what one does care about is foreseeable futures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo Hobgoblin View Post
    Until society accepts that you just cant keep spitting out babies just because you feel like it.. nothing will change.

    When the civilized world stops rewarding people for reproducing and we stop subsidizing the breeding habits of third world countries nothing will change.
    Some of the worst offenders, Brazil and China, have reigned in their fertility rate to less than that of people here, something at 1.5 for both, respectively.

    Yet they are destroying even more land and resources because they desire to mine resources in the amazon or destroy land for resources.

    You cannot just blame it on "wreckless birthing" because industrialization is the primary cause of natural destruction.
    Last edited by StrawberryClock; 07-13-2012 at 16:51.

  15. #30
    5000+ GirlyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    5,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StrawberryClock View Post
    Killing mosquitoes is pointless and has greater implications, and wiping out one or two species disrupts entire chains. As I already mentioned in say, wiping out middle species, one causes a flourishing and a crash in their food, while starving out those who prey on them. Nature has always been functional only at an equilibrium.
    The point is the mosquitoes move. Overhunting is another problem altogether and something I'd agree is harmful and I think hunting in general should be banned except in a few cases. It's not really needed anymore.

    My point about the earth is: it's never been kind to man and you can't expect man to be kind to it. You mention man getting in touch with his natural self and I don't think you understand what that means. Beavers made good clothes as do other animals and to survive in the winter one needs warm clothes. Beaver hunting didn't just magically stop, as civilization advanced beaver hunting became less needed and the practice slowed down.

    People make homes out of wood. So many other things are made of wood and therefore we need a lot of wood. Luckily there's a lot of wood around.

    I just don't think you get it. There's a difference between dumping radioactive waste in a river and gathering resources.

    It doesn't help that man eats meat either. Unfortunately animals will die because of this. ;[

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •