environmentalists: deluded enemies of mankind

Why is it that when a creature alters the environment to better suit its needs through for example the digging of boroughs, building of mounds or construction of dams it is natural yet when man performs essentially the same tasks to a more sophisticated degree these hitherto natural acts aquire a dark quality?

Why is it that prior to the arrival of man the various extinctions and alterations in habitat which came about as the total sum of all biological action are considered environmental change yet when man is added as a variable to that sum it becomes environmental destruction?

Here is why. Whereas most see reason as the distinguishing trait between man and animal the environmentalist sees it as the distinguishing trait between man and nature itself. Moreover wheras as most see reason as mans prime attribute the environmentalist sees it as a deplorable, and as implied by their rhetoric, 'unnatural' defect. To the environmentalist man is a cancer which is eating away at nature which they treat with a divine reverance.

It must be made clear that all their sophistry in all its forms whether it be opposition to gm foods or agitation for action against global warming is inherently anti-human and whatever rhetoric they choose to cloak it in must not obscure that fact. The environmentalist movement represents a retrograde force which although lesser than islamism in its belligerence is far greater in its scope. The islamists afterall only want to take us back to the dark ages, id speculate that the environmentalists consider that epoch a picture of obscene excess. In fact I think even the cavemans vulgar use of animal pelts for warmth and prolifigate waste of trees for spears would cause the average environmentalist to recoil in the face of such grotesque modernity. They wont be satisfied until mankind has effectively devolved to the state of his genetic ancestors.

 

very intresting... its funny because im a cean, well avid environmentalist that would agree with what you say. In that all things ''man made'' are infact natural, simply because thtas just how it is. However i would like to mention that the human species differs in relation to all others, as i know anyway, in that there are many conflicting argumentsa as to how our environment should be.

Who is to know whats right or wrong or even if this exists but it will be intresting to see how nature responds to its current state of things....

 

I fail to see how environmentalism is anti-human. A clean environment = clean air for us to breathe, clean water for us to drink, safe food to eat... We aren't separate from nature, we're part of it and more connected to it than we could ever imagine. Fighting for the environment is fighting not only for nature but for our future and our right to exist. We can't exist without an environment that can support us, we're not just polluting the earth, we're polluting ourselves.

Everything is connected. Fighting for the environment is fighting for public health and our future. Environmentalism is far from anti-human, I'd say it's one of the most pro-human movements there is...

 

I say some people go too far on both ends. I do what i can to not be wasteful, i recycle, i only kill an animal i am going to eat, but i understand you have a break a few eggs to have an omlet.

 

Yes sir--the sooner we get this bitch covered in cement ,the better off we'll be.Man oh man--some people just don't get it.Barter Mama does.

 

Considering I won't be having any kids, this view isn't so bad. I have long been OK w/ the concept of the earth as we have known it ceasing to exist. Whether it was an ice age or any other # of causes, it has happened before and it will happen again.

 

BarterMama's right on. If mankind acted like any other animal and only built what it needed, only used what it needed, and didn't foul the environment, then you could say we're just another animal in our impact on the earth. But, that isn't what we've done and are continuing to do.

Extinction is indeed a part of natural selection, but what other animal but man is making, or has made, itself extinct?

 

Well said, good point as always.

 

Why is it that a fat black woman wears a crewcut? And worse yet, gets her picture taken and posts it here? And worse yet, spouts complete nonsense, and posts that here as well?

 

If beavers controlled 80% of earth's surface, we'd be worried about them too. They don't. I'm not anti-humankind, but I don't want us to sacrifice the greatest gift ever.

 

I do not think you should be making negative comments about people's choice in haircuts or their sig pics. If this had been a senior member or moderator I suppose I wouldn't be the only one calling you out on it.

 

This is some nasy racist stuff as well as personally insulting. I apologize to Gravity for her having to read such drivel. This dirtydog person should be ashamed and banned. All his high ideals are a sham in the face of this kind of rudeness.

 

I agree 100%. I've been checking back and was glad to see your post. Ya know dirty dog, you could edit the original comment. I have had to do the same thing after I've said some things that didn't quite come out right.

 

When an extinction happens naturally, it is usually a sign that that species didn't have the proper adaptations needed to survive. Nature goes on. When humans cause a species to go extinct, it is a tragedy, because that species may have been perfectly adapted to its surrondings and could have continued to contribute to Earth's fragile ecosystems had it not been for our greed.

Our intelligence is wonderful, but left unchecked by the rules of Nature, which we have allowed it to become, it can be very dangerous indeed. I would say it is much more anti-human to support the destruction of the only home we have. No Earth, no people.

 

That's a rash generalisation. Islam isn't bad in and of itself, and neither is environmental consideration.

Why aren't economic policies seen in that same light? Because your dividends are depending on them. Economic forces have done more wrong in the last few decades than any other form of idealism. And economics are a form of idealism for those that promote them.

I support protecting our environment, before I support protecting our banking industry.

And why should protecting the environment be seen as retrograde, it's very progessive in that it looks to protect our future. Can you say the same for the financial/economic policies that are proposed?

 

Valid points.

 

I agree with Barter Momma, especially that being an environmentalist is being pro-human.

And the thing is people don't respect the earth that holds us.. Without the earth we wouldn't exist, we wouldn't survive. Some people don't respect that and that is just not right.

 

We ain't wrong. We aint sorry. And its prob'ly gonna happen again.

 

deluded enemies of mankind?

are you fucking kidding me!?!?!?

Why?

For wanting our children and grandchildren to enjoy clean air? clean water?

A sick environment leads to a sick people, that's just common sence.
Dont believe me, go visit chernobyl.

Who has your best interests at heart the guy trying to make a profit or the guy trying to keep your drinking water safe?

Environmentalists care more about the future of mankind that most others.

It's just common sence that you don't shit where you eat...