How big is your footprint on the Earth?

[Anonymouse]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

You don't know jack. I wasn't being sarcastic. I actually strongly believe that the Earth is overpopulated.

Then I ask, compared to what? What determines what is 'overpopulation'. And the last time someone made that argument was Thomas Malthus, who was easily refuted by Mr. Adam Smith, and of course, capitalism.

[Anonymouse]

Re: The Ankap Thread

When you did the google image search for 'tree hugger,' for my new avatar might have also seen the image of Glen... http://forests.org/images/gbarry-tree-hugger-lg.jpg

He is a great guy. He has a PhD and lives off charitable donations for his non-profit in order to protect the Earth. He started and runs the Ecological Internet. If you've got a few extra bucks, even a small donation to him would be a help for all he does.

The Ecological Internet (his work) includes:

EcoEarth.Info -- http://www.EcoEarth.Info/
Climate Ark -- http://www.climateark.org/
Forests.org -- http://forests.org/
Water Conserve -- http://www.waterconserve.org
Rainforest Portal -- http://www.rainforestportal.org/
Ocean Conserve -- http://www.oceanconserve.org/

I wouldn't help him if he and I were the last people on earth.

[Anahita]

Re: The Ankap Thread

I wouldn't help him if he and I were the last people on earth.

Which do you prefer?



or

[Anonymouse]

Re: The Ankap Thread

Environmentalists are idiots for only they would believe the 'environment' has more value than a human.

[Sip]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

If you can't afford the basic necessities to sustain life as a contributing member of society (i.e. not a drain), then you are part of the "over population". What determines whether you can afford the necessities is supply/demand.

But don't get me wrong though ... I am faaaar from being an anarchist. However, what I do mean is that if you can't afford to pay for food, gas, water, home, basic health care, and public services, then don't start having more damn babies.

[Anahita]

Re: The Ankap Thread

Environmentalists are idiots for only they would believe the 'environment' has more value than a human.

Humans cannot live without the 'environment.'

Industrial logging


Industrial-style irony

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/depts/philosophy/awaymave/402/images/car.gif

[Anonymouse]

Re: The Ankap Thread

Humans cannot live without the 'environment.'

Duh, thanks for that Captain Obvious!

However, there's a fine line between stating that, and advocating humans simpyl live like primitives and 'noble savages'.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with logging.

[Anahita]

Re: The Ankap Thread

Duh, thanks for that Captain Obvious!

However, there's a fine line between stating that, and advocating humans simpyl live like primitives and 'noble savages'.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with logging.

I don't remember 'advocating' living like 'primitives' (whatever that means.) There is something wrong with many kinds of logging--like that done by savage 'nobles' who think the Earth (and all of nature) exists for their profiteering.

I already pointed to the Menonminee tribe in Wisconsin as a good example of non-damaging sustainable logging (where profit maximization isn't the guide and ecology is).

[Anahita]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

If you can't afford the basic necessities to sustain life as a contributing member of society (i.e. not a drain), then you are part of the "over population". What determines whether you can afford the necessities is supply/demand.

But don't get me wrong though ... I am faaaar from being an anarchist. However, what I do mean is that if you can't afford to pay for food, gas, water, home, basic health care, and public services, then don't start having more damn babies.

I don't understand the connection you are making there. Have you ever read Brave New World?

First, what constitutes a 'contributing member' of society. I know of lots of people who can afford to buy almost anything (except maybe their soul back from the devil.) There are many with plenty of money who contribute destruction and worse to society. Then there are some people who have little money yet contribute more than you can even imagine.

------------
From Brave New World
"Every man, woman and child compelled to consume so much a year. In the interests of industry. The sole result …"

"Ending is better than mending. The more stitches, the less riches; the more stitches …"

"One of these days," said Fanny, with dismal emphasis, "you'll get into trouble."

"Conscientious objection on an enormous scale. Anything not to consume. Back to nature."

"I do love flying. I do love flying."

"Back to culture. Yes, actually to culture. You can't consume much if you sit still and read books."

http://mural.uv.es/madelro/bravenewworld.html

I like individuality, Mother Nature, and human emotions...

"The novel Brave New World shows that in order for a utopian society to achieve a state of stability, a loss of individuality, and the undoing of Mother Nature must occur… "We don't want to change. Every change is a menace to stability," (Huxley 153). Therein lies the problem.

The need for stability creates a government which, "believes that stability can be achieved if people think and look the same," (Fan 1). Stability, in effect, demands robots, not people… Emotions are such a personal, intimate feeling of such overwhelming individual influence it is to no amazement that the government in Brave New World discourages these intense human characteristics.

Loss of identity is in large part the result of genetic engineering. Tampering with Mother Nature and the miracle of life ensures that early off in life there are few, if any emotional ties. "

http://somaweb.org/w/sub/BNW_CostOfStability.html

[Sip]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

Loss of identity is in large part the result of genetic engineering. Tampering with Mother Nature and the miracle of life ensures that early off in life there are few, if any emotional ties. "

If you don't want to "tamper" with "Mother Nature" you might as well die. Also, calling it "miracle of life" just shows a rather simplistic mind that is confused and amazed by complexity rather than curious to learn and expand its knowledge. There are no miracles in life ... not even life itself.

Before this "discussion" gets too out of hand, I will again stress my position. I am fully AGAINST sacrificing quality of individual human life in order to maximize quantity of life. However this does not extend to other forms of life ... I am for example FOR maximizing cattle life to be used as food in order to increase our quality of life .. but that's besides the point.

In other words, I do not think life (and by extension increasing/expanding/lengthening life) is a goal. However, I do believe maximizing the quality of life is a valid goal. And yes I am fully aware that you think quality of life will be maximized by everyone embracing and saving mother nature ... but that's your view and not mine.