Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Hippikos, May 21, 2008.
Jonah Goldberg in the LA Times
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
He isn't. He's a water carrier for capitalist exploitation, and favors policies that lead to environmental degradation for profit.
When he's done "conserving" the Boundary Waters, for example, it will be a drain field for heavy metal mining operations.
As Aldo Leopold and Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson and John Muir and a good many other have pointed out, "economics" that cannot include as a cost the destruction of what people are willing to expend great effort and pay good money to have and enjoy is a poor basis for decision.
And stewardship, as any Christian can tell you, involves "mysticism" rather than economics - in Goldberg's false dichotomy and pejorative labeling.
Except that nature is proven to exist, and the absense of nature means our doom. I also prefer plastic bags because they can be reused more often and recycled, and it doesn't involve clear cutting of forests.
No it's not. Modern industrial civilization is not sustainable or ecologically healthy.
IYO sustainable is...Slash and burn agriculture? Travel by stage-coach? burning peat?
Healthy is giardia, malaria? By all means let us emulate the superb ecological health of sub-saharan Africa. More later...I have to go run some bison off a cliff now to feed my kids.
Sustainable is sustainable - slash and burn is not, by and large, at current levels - it is a recent innovation that will do itself in shortly in most places. Travel by stagecoach probably is. Burning peat depends on rate and climate.
Regardless of our difficulty in imagining alternatives, we will be turning to some - what we're doing now is unsustainable, and that's what "unsustainable" means: you have to do something else eventually.
It just amazes me how many people swallow this hysterical nonsense of catastrophic collapse of the ecosystem. Are they deaf, dumb, and blind? Or just plain ignorant of even basic science? There is much to be said for conservation and care in daily life, but elevating the environment to the status of deity is obscene. Gore and his ilk know full well that what they are peddling is bunk. But there is an immense amount of money to be made by stampeding the sheep. And beyond the money is the end goal of seizing absolute control of everyone's life. You think not? Control who can make what, where he can make it, and tax him to death for doing so, and you have your hand in every citizens pocket. Cap and trade? More power grabbing BS the entire multi trillion dollar cost of which will come ONLY from the pockets of common citizens because all such taxes will merely be passed along to the end user as they always have been. So when you hear "tax the oil companies", for example, what you need to understand is that what is meant is "direct and regulate your life by means of confiscatory taxes"
Heil Gore ! (and the "human caused" Global Warming modern enviro-Nazi movment)
The absence of nature cannot destroy us, because death is a force greater than nature.
That makes no sense.
That's laughable, considering you were the guy who said "we were never born, so we can never die."
Are you indulging in solipsism at our expense?
Nature did not create itself, and, therefore, cannot be the cause of our deaths.
Nature did create itself.
If nature created itself, why does it die?
It will go on without us, but it's not immune from environmental disasters, extinction, and collapse of ecosystems. The only reason life still exists here is that deep underground, there are bacteria that are isolated from any major catastrophe that has happened on the surface.
The greatest environmentalists will NOT be protesters from greenpeace.
They will be engineers sweating it out in labs trying to develop better batteries.
Economics is also the poorly-defined science of exploitation of resources. Economists view environmentalism as the enemy, because the almost total lack of accounting for the environmental costs of resource exploitation reveals Economics as a thoroughly unbalanced point of view, or "science". It's not all that romantic either.
But nature will die, albeit slowly, over a very long period of time. Unlike our deaths as individuals, which are an abrupt transition from consciousness into nonexistence.
Over a long period of time? One hopes so, but this is by no means guaranteed.
Ever notice how quickly a "greenie" will leave facts and criticism aside and attack you for asking a question or pointing out a weakness in an argument ? The ad hominem attacks become a substitute for discussion, a way out of the impasse of having to face the truth of their irrationality.
How anyone can believe that the Earth System, nature if you will, can be facing disaster because of humans ? This is silly IMO. Nature extinguishes some 25 species every day as I have been told. This "climate crisis" fear will be forgotten in a few years just as acid rain, the ozone hole, planet ice age and population disaster fears were in the last 25 years.
Many civilizations have died out due to environmental disaster, it's not irrational to be concerned about this, especially considering how shitty we treat nature. We are in the midst of a mass extinction event brought about by humans, the evidence is overwhelming.
Cloth bags last for years.
Separate names with a comma.