It really worries me

I've just left school, and I have some really fucking awesome friends there, but... it really got to me that, however nice someone was, only one gave a shit about the environment. I know you shouldn't enforce your views on people, but it really worried me that out of everyone in my year I only ever met one person (surely there must have been a few more) who actually bothered to care. I mean, they're gonna be the ones who determine whether our planet is totally fucking wrecked or not in the near future... I just hope that the kids at my school are not averagely opinionated as far as the environment is concerned...

 

It's the Rap-is-crap, confusing otherwise educatable minds.

Actually, I think the enviro wackos are largely to blame, for framing "the environment" pretty much as a Zero-Sum game. That in order to be more "green" you must be more poor or do without. There's so much misinformation out there, that many people have become lazy, figuring out that it's easier not to care, than to figure out what to believe or do.

I care about the environment. I don't litter, I don't waste, I am too much a packrat, not wanting to throw things away that I should throw away, thinking I might eventually find a use for them. But much of the environment is cultural and on TV. And I disagree with most of the main points of the "environmental" extremists, because they so conveniently like to forget that humans have needs too. And much of what the "green nazis" like to claim that nature needs our "help," often it doesn't and isn't so bad as they claim.

 

There's one thing I find annoys me about the enviro-nutters. What people don't tell you is that you don't need to cycle everywhere to get about and be green for example, there's a glorious thing called public transport! It's an interesting consept:

What happens is, One person drives a large number of persons on something called a 'Bus' or a 'Train' or a 'Tram', stopping at pre-defined stops along a certain route. This means the carbon is shared amongst several people.

I love sarcasm ^_^

 

Umm.... whoa, I'm not an enviro-nutter... I just meant that most people I know actually seem to prefer to screw up their surroundings and the atmosphere than not, for no reason at all.

 

There's another place it can go. To junk up somebody else's home. That's what has happened with my Dad, after he had a stroke. He isn't able to live alone anymore, and so my brother-in-law has been cleaning out his house, and after they get what they want, there's still plenty of junk for me. Of course, my brother-in-law and sister generally get the first pick, because they are caring for my Dad.

But I actually think that something might be worth something eventually, considering the value of money not spent, on things already available for free. But then, what good is a carpet shampooer, when I rarely even vaccuum? And now, I have 2 vaccuum cleaners. Yippee. (sarcastic) One for each hand I guess. And that's not counting the little shop vac. Now that I salvaged the little carpet shampooer from its destiny of the landfill, gee it would be nice if the brushes for it finally show up, so that I might be able to use it someday?

See, that's the downside of that nonsense of "Recycle, Reuse, Reduce." Isn't it just easier, to just never throw anything away, and junk up one's home, thereby needing an even bigger home, to store all our junk? At least it's an alternative, to the greedy unaccountable corporation advertising underlying mantra of "Buy! Buy! Buy! and then you will be happy." (If not, then go buy, buy, buy some more?)

BTW, why is it, that a house is worth even less, if it comes with all the previous occupant's junk? Somehow that just doesn't seem right. Perhaps it's partly because, most people have plenty of junk, already?

 

Yeah, it's called Rap-is-crap and the "idiot tube" TV.

Just trashing the culture, for no good reason at all.

 

Oh but some enviro wackos naively seem to think, that "the environment" "cares" about "it's the thought that counts." Pretty much meaningless or false "warm fuzzies." Being too intellectually lazy to actually consider logical cause-and-effect.

Often, perhaps more so in a prosperous society, it takes a really big city, to make public transit or subway systems, all that economically feasible. Until the buses or trains stop by, every few minutes (due to the huge population to be served), what are they really good for, but for people who are too young or can't afford a car?

About your signature:

Well that's why some people who are often ready ought to marry younger. Sure, more people should be welcome to enjoy sex, but within marriage and procreating all the more precious, valuable, sacred human life. Sure there should be a proper outlet for humanity's powerful reproductive urges. That plus all the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, adds up to a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race.

 

The higher the population of humans, the more enviromentally destructive we become. Sales in diapers and plastics for children and babies go up(need I remind you all that one diaper takes almost takes 100 years to decompose?) Plastic can take 500-1000 yrs to decompose!!! So, there goes the majoring factor of over filled land-fills. We as humans are personally responsible for Id'e say about 90% of the polution on earth. Why would we increase that? WE will end up destroying our earth, even if it isn't as bad as some scientists make it out to be, this can only progress into something that will inturn destroy us all. Sexual urges need to be curbed; and presidents(im not gonna name any names...*cough-bush-cough*) need to get their heads out of their a@3$!!!

 

it is worrying that many young people seem uninterested in ecological destruction. it seems that even some people on this forum are so uneducated that they can't distinguish between human culture and the natural world.

they mistakenly think that environmentalists actually consider the natural world to have feelings, emotions, desires, likes and dislikes. i don't know anybody who thinks this way. equally strange, is that some folk believe in an invisible entity that created all life and matter as we know it, without leaving a shred of proof.

they use the term "wacko" because they don't have a balanced perspective. their minds are so polluted with bronze-age mythology, that they are the very "extremists" they denounce.

they fail to realize that an exponentially increasing human population combined with steady ecological destruction is a recipie for disater (both man-made and natural), wars, famines, disease, suffering, etc. funny thing is, they claim to care so much about humans (and little else), yet they can't come to grips with the idea that humans need a healthy environment in order to flourish.

 

Aye i know just what you mean. People think it's weird if you care about the environment. hmm

 

Caring for the environment is fine, but you need to make sure you're not being used by someone with their own agenda. Environmentalism is going to be used in the near future (and it's already started) to advance a totalitarian agenda. Try to always look closely at new government policies regarding global warming and such, because they're not about helping the environment at all. They're about taking away our rights.

In case you misunderstood that, I'm not saying that environmentalists are trying to take away our rights. I'm saying that environmentalism is going to be used by people who don't give a damn about it in truth, to advance their own agenda. Take Al Gore, for instance. If you know anything about him, you sure as hell wouldn't believe anything he told you.

 

Man is also part of the environment.

 

And is there really all that distinct of a difference?

Most Americans seem to be highly materialistic, and much distracted by the "media soma" of our age, the constant buzz of music and noise from huge-screen TVs and iPods. ("Soma" was the "safe" drug upon which most everybody in the bizarre book, Brave New World, was constantly stoned on.) Most Americans can't even be bothered, to inform themselves about which God-fearing, freedom-loving political candidates to vote for, so we keep getting crappy, unqualified socialists ever jacking up our taxes and undermining our freedom. So how can such typical morons, even begin to understand complex "sciences" such as ecology, in a world increasingly jammed with deceptive, simpleton sound-bites?

Some do. Ever hear of the supposed "spirit" of nature, Gaia? Or of "deep ecology," in which they almost admit their view of ecology to be a "religion?"

No shred of proof? Even Noah Webster, of dictionary fame, said it was evident that the things around us didn't create themselves. Even the Chinese picture-word for "create" tells the Bible Genesis story of creation. Apparently you haven't visited many creationist websites? Here's one I think. Institute for Creation Research

They use the term "wacko" because some leading "environmentalists" deliberately refuse to see much place in nature for people, even though people are part of nature. Very strange.

Human population is supposed to increase exponentially, as that's what God meant when he commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and designed us so that our children would also inherit the ability to reproduce, and deliberately didn't give people any contraceptives after commanding them to multiply, and made what populates the planet, to be extremely pleasurable and for humans to enjoy being constantly "in heat" able to produce children year-round. And yet humans reproduce more gradually than most any other creature imaginable, all the more evidence that humans were simply not designed to use any "birth control," other than abstinence until marriage, but of course.

 

TOTALLY IDIOTIC,AS USUAL.I get so tired of reading your stupid bullshit.Yeah,this is a personal attack.I'll reduce this down to the simplest level I can think of.Take a table and start putting "things" on IT.any things.Go ahead and just keep putting "things on it.Lo and fuckin' behold--soon when you put a thing on it--one of the "things" already there will fall off and maybe break..Put another thing on it--another thing will fall off.And another.And another.Get it,or do you not get analogy??

 

Yeah, I get the analogy.

But what I don't get, is why you think that a big ol' kitchen table, can only hold but 1 piece of paper, or mail, and not 2 pieces?

Another thing I don't get, is how one can honestly and caringly explain to all these breeders, why they can't expand into whatever empty spaces they see all around them. They say, that they can. (i.e. "Everybody in the world could stand within the space of any major city, or live in Texas" assorted arguments/analogies/examples) I agree that they can. Doesn't look like "nature" is out to stop them. Actually, I see nature as encouraging people to populate all the more if or as they can, because all life seeks to spread and fill every useful niche.

My preacher was talking of some "Creation Mandate." Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, God commanded people to do. What could that possibly mean? Well it means to multiply and fill the earth. See, it isn't complicated. It is quite easy to understand. Is it a population level "goal" or more of a process? Apparently a process, as children grow up to marry and have still more children. It implies that as time passes, the world should be growing fuller and fuller of people. Some Mormon cult website claimed that the world is full, and yet there is room for more. Not quite right. No, the world isn't "full." Sure, if it was "full," room might still be found for more. After all, a table can hold quite a lot of clutter, especially if you contain it in boxes, so that stacks of junk mail don't just slide or fall off the edge. How many people is "enough?" Humans aren't qualified to decide such profound things, because there are compelling arguments for "more and more," because the majority of people aren't finished having their children, more people would be glad to come to life, people need a proper outlet for their powerful reproductive urges, etc. Such things must be decided by a "higher power." For pets, since God gave humans dominion over nature and other creatures, we may decide for them, hence we often choose to get them fixed to be better pets and since they have us for "families." Our "higher power" is God, who made it clear that we are to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. So that makes it God's responsibility to determine just how populous he would ultimately allow us to become, and to provide the means to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

How can you judge how the future is supposed to be, when you haven't even seen it yet, for a proper basis to compare to? Surely you don't think that the past, is a proper guide to how populous humans should be? The original 2 people that God directly created, Adam & Eve, obviously isn't enough.

Didn't commie Clinton run for president of the U.S. based on "change?" Not change for the better, but just "change." Hmmmm. Isn't population growth, change? Why the phobia of such natural and human-beneficial "change?" I'm not even talking of "change" to end prosperity and freedom, as Clinton was.

And why must we all live on tables anyway? Why must human population be limited by supposedly traditional boundaries? Places that previously didn't have many people living there, can be adapted to hold all the more people "overspilling" from populous regions or cities. People can't sometimes sleep on the floor, like when one has an "overflow" number of guests? Who's to say that cities can't grow larger, more numerous, and closer together, whatever is needed to better accomodate whatever people God may allow to come to life? Cities only occupy but around 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more, and cities can be populated denser, have more highrises, or whatever may be needed.

How can people have all the children they were meant to have, in a world with so many people already? Simple. Populate denser and more efficiently. There could come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. That promotes the proper respect of individuals and families and their freedom and dignity, and refocuses any efforts at "reform" towards the things that better serve the populous masses.

I have an executive-sized desk, big enough to do stupidly complicated unjust income taxes on, and I plan to buy an even bigger one, for my home office when I get it fixed up. I don't buy the small thinking, poverty-promoting, athiest-based, delusions of the world. How dare they tell me I can't buy another good book, just because I already have a big bookcase full of books? I can't buy more bookcases or add on more rooms? I can't expand my personal library, because the world has "enough" libraries? Who are these over-educated idiots, who want to set arbitrary, useless, anti-life "quotas" on just how many people they claim to think, can be alive at the same time? Who died and made them to be "god?"

 

Humans reproduce more gradually than most other species, because man has the ability to think for himself, and many don't espouse the radical christian doctrine you are proposing. Man now has contraception available to him, if your great all powerful god didn't do that who did?

Wait...bet I know the answer...was it the devil?

The poor underpriveleged infants in war torn and famine ridden countries, and the parents that held their dead bodies in their arms. Who is going to support them or ensure them a world to grow up in?

You put more importance on your taxes than you do on lives that are lost.

 

I mean that humans usually only have but 1 baby at a time, we don't usually have "litters" like other creatures, every few months or whatever.

And how is bad leadership and Marxism, conveniently overlooked, for the convenient and false scapegoat of "overpopulation," the catch-all cover for continuing the corrupt status-quo, and reforming almost nothing?

Even a newspaper cartoon, depicted the devil, the serpent, offering Eve a condom in the Garden of Eden. Now if even a secular newspaper can get it right, why can't we?

 

Newspaper cartoon, whoa that's really something I want to get behind.

If your great god wanted humans to have litters he would have designed them that way.

Perhaps, he looks down and isn't all that pleased with the great white christian way, and sought to control their excesses, by making them infertile. But how many of you christians that don't have the children you wish to have seek the skills of fertility clinics? Wouldn't that be working against your makers plan as much as using a condom?