NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi,

I really care for my environment a great amount, because it this world has a natural beauty all around, and for people to cut down forests and reshape our lands really is disheartening. This earth is so beautiful and people take it over it seems interested in building profit, and I hate that.

No, not really.

Nope, not in the slightest.

People gotta remember, we're part of nature too, thus anything we do is good and natural.
I mean, for all we know we're doing what we're supposed to do, and it's all one big cycle of the Earth.

We're just being greedy wanting to manipulate the Earth and it's ecosystem to allow us to live longer here. Shame on us.

Hi,

I really care for my environment a great amount, because it this world has a natural beauty all around, and for people to cut down forests and reshape our lands really is disheartening. This earth is so beautiful and people take it over it seems interested in building profit, and I hate that.
They never plant new trees either because it is in the logging industries best interest for the forests to run out so they go out of business.

Fuck no. I'll be off this Earth soon enough. Fuck my kids' generation. Fuck the Earth. Fuck humanity. Boy is it good to be Republican.

I recycle and have a compost. I vote green in local elections. I also try to use my car as little as possible and use public transportation (or walk) to most things.

Works very well now that petrol is so expensive.

FASS!

You're back, I missed you!

How was your little forumban?

Fuck no. I'll be off this Earth soon enough. Fuck my kids' generation. Fuck the Earth. Fuck humanity. Boy is it good to be Republican.
EXACTLY! Who really cares what it's gonna look like in 100 years? If your kids can't deal with it, then quit raising them like pussies! :D

FASS!
You're back, I missed you!
How was your little forumban?

Thank you, and it flew by nicely, as it was over the weekend. Let's not threadjack, though, OK? I have to behave nowadays. ;)

People gotta remember, we're part of nature too, thus anything we do is good and natural. I mean, for all we know we're doing what we're supposed to do, and it's all one big cycle of the Earth.


As concerns the portion that I have bolded above: explain, then, the common aversion to such "natural" behaviors as rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc. The problem with the "we're just doing what's natural" idea is that, unlike the vast majority of other Earth species, human beings are capable of rational thought; a human can examine and alter his own behavior. This characteristic sets the human species well apart from the rest of nature.

I would expect a dog to just do whatever without any care or concern. I expect better from my fellow human beings.

As concerns the portion that I have bolded above: explain, then, the common aversion to such "natural" behaviors as rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc. The problem with the "we're just doing what's natural" idea is that, unlike the vast majority of other Earth species, human beings are capable of rational thought; a human can examine and alter his own behavior. This characteristic sets the human species well apart from the rest of nature.

I would expect a dog to just do whatever without any care or concern. I expect better from my fellow human beings.

Totally Agree with you!

As concerns the portion that I have bolded above: explain, then, the common aversion to such "natural" behaviors as rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc. The problem with the "we're just doing what's natural" idea is that, unlike the vast majority of other Earth species, human beings are capable of rational thought; a human can examine and alter his own behavior. This characteristic sets the human species well apart from the rest of nature.

I would expect a dog to just do whatever without any care or concern. I expect better from my fellow human beings.


I shal respond to a boldened part of your post then (Really.. school essay taking up my time).

As per the bolded section. Prove it.
I have seen no proof to suggest my cat is in any way incapable of rational thought regarding the world around her, nor have I seen any evidence to suggest that any of the other larger animals are incapable of doing so.
If fact, I've only seen evidence to suggest that the afformentioned larger animals are just more concerned with other things, not like the trivial crap we humans concern ourselves with.

Of course, what do I know, I'm only studying human language as opposed to annimal communication, having to relate it to social interaction and what I will refer to as thought capacity of the differing subjects.

Dostanuot Loj,

I will continue with the discussion as soon as you answer my question. If "anything we do is good and natural," why do human societies create and enforce laws for the purpose of discouraging and punishing certain such behaviors?

Totally Agree with you!

Ah, but I have not shared my opinions as concerns the environment. This section of the U.S. Libertarian Party National Platform sums it up quite well:

"The Issue: Toxic waste disposal problems have been created by government policies that separate liability from property. Present legal principles, particularly the unjust and false concept of "public property," block privatization of the use of the environment and hence block resolution of controversies over resource use. We condemn the EPA's Superfund whose taxing powers are used to penalize all chemical firms, regardless of their conduct. Such clean-ups are a subsidy of irresponsible companies at the expense of responsible ones.

"The Principle: Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

"Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

"Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml )

Although I am not so sure that property rights can be applied in any meaningful way to the atmosphere, at least the natural atmosphere. Some degree of government regulation will still have to exist there. (including, I think, a ban on smoking in public; at the very least, give me the right to respond with a reasonable degree of force the next time someone causes his putrid exhaust to hit me right in the face... :mad: )

Dostanuot Loj,

I will continue with the discussion as soon as you answer my question. If "anything we do is good and natural," why do human societies create and enforce laws for the purpose of discouraging and punishing certain such behaviors?


Because it's part of our intracate, and natural, social structure.
Same reason ants degrade themselves into specific duties, or why certian groups of primates will degrade themselves into the dominant/submissive role, it is what is built into us as a charactaristic. It is, or rather was I guess, benificial to us as a species to conduct ourselves in such a way among our social group because we, again as social creatures, depend on eachother for survival, and conducting ourselves in such a way with laws and taboos and other stuff, is a way of the social group controlling itself so that it may continue to survive. As time passes and the social group thrives, certian charractaristics of being an animal have to be restricted for the benifiet of the social group as a whole, even if these characteristics have great advantages to the individual.

Because it's part of our intracate, and natural, social structure.
Same reason ants degrade themselves into specific duties, or why certian groups of primates will degrade themselves into the dominant/submissive role, it is what is built into us as a charactaristic. It is, or rather was I guess, benificial to us as a species to conduct ourselves in such a way among our social group because we, again as social creatures, depend on eachother for survival, and conducting ourselves in such a way with laws and taboos and other stuff, is a way of the social group controlling itself so that it may continue to survive. As time passes and the social group thrives, certian charractaristics of being an animal have to be restricted for the benifiet of the social group as a whole, even if these characteristics have great advantages to the individual.

So, then, it is not true that "anything we do is good and natural;" we cannot say that "anything" is good and natural if our natural behavior is to punish those behaviors that are considered bad and unnatural.

Those behaviors that promote social cohesion and survival are "good and natural." Isn't it true that behaviors that cause harm to the environment can possibly threaten social cohesion and survival?

I actually care about the enviroment. Recycle whenever I can at home and business. Clean up after other climbers and hikers when I am out in the wilderness. We should also protect the other animals on the planet against human caused extinction. I also support DNA manipulation to bring back Mastadons, Giant cats and of course the T-rex. All for human amusement of course but under the guise of helping our fellow animals.

Although I do believe in logging, drilling in Anwr, drilling in the ocean and other so called destructive activities. One thing I think is that we have to strike a balance with nature. Do what you can but ultimately humans should be considered first.

If you saw my bedroom, you'd get your answer.

I don't litter if I can help it, because it looks foul. I'm not so much concerned about the environmental ramifications. The environment is subservient to the people in it, not the other way around.

So, then, it is not true that "anything we do is good and natural." Those behaviors that promote social cohesion and survival are "good and natural." Isn't it true that behaviors that cause harm to the environment can possibly threaten social cohesion and survival?


I fail to see your argument in your first sentence. All you've done there is make a statement, with no backing (And the very statement you started with), disregarding everything I have already said.
Second sentence you agree with me.

As for your final question.
I'm going to make the assumption that you are between the age of 10 and 100 years old. From this assumption (Being wrong with this assumption won't make a difference anyway, since it's still just a speck of time) it can logicvally be thought that you have not personally watched the entire evolution of this planet. Thus I ask you, what gives you the authority to proclaim anything harmful to nature, if you yourself have not seen the cycle in which nature works?
Of course, once we work past the whole "What is harm to the environment and what is not" question, we can address the question of behavior.
Now, behaviors you may consider harmful to the survival and integrity of the social group, for an example let's use war, or more specifically the idea of territory to be owned. Such a behavior, that of posession of land, or rather an area of existance, serves a very specific purpose in the human social group. Without it we would flock in large masses to high resource areas and eat up (for lack of a better term) the resources there. When you introdice the idea of territory, and the idea of war and fighting in regards to such territory, you remove large portions of the population from a given area because a social group in the area fights them off. So if let's say, Group A occupies a fertile valley with enough resources to maintain it for many generations, and Group B tries to take up residence here, Group A will fight them off. This does 2 things that are benificial to human social groups and survival, 1) it keeps Group A in a sustainable environment, and 2) it forces Group B to aquire such an environment for itself. To put this into a modern context, the invasion of Russia by Germany in the second world war was primarily for land (Living space, go look it up if you must). In such a case Russia fought Germany off, keeping it's sustainable environment, however due to technological advancement the means by which both sides had to fight for such land certianly caused effects which one would consider harmful to the environment (see opening question to this argument).

Now before you bring us back to technology as unnatural, because I know you or someone else will, technology and tools are not specific to humans. Once again I bring in the example of other primate groups who use tools. The difference with us humans is that we are so crammed together in suitable places for our survival compared to our numbers, so we end up having to build upon eachother continoiusly to ensure the survival of our specific social groups. the same situation would arise if you placed two groups of those primates that use sticks to get termites for food (forgot the group name, but that is the use of a tool) next to a limited supply of food, in a limited space. They would begin to come up with better and more sophistocated sticks for getting their food, the termites, so that they can survive over the opposing social group. And given enough time this would continue to unknow levels of technological sophistication. We humans are stuck in simmilar situations, except we have many many more factors to which we must depend for our survival, and thus many more areas in which to advance to gain the opper hand. As we advance we gain knowladge on resources which we, like any other of the larger animals, can exploit to further our own survival.

I fail to see your argument in your first sentence. All you've done there is make a statement, with no backing (And the very statement you started with), disregarding everything I have already said.
Second sentence you agree with me.


Note that I edited my post before you submited your response. We cannot say that "anything we do is good and natural" because it appears that our natural behavior is to prevent and punish those behaviors considered "bad" and "unnatural." How is it that "anything we do is good and natural" if we insist on restricting and punishing some of these behaviors?


From this assumption (Being wrong with this assumption won't make a difference anyway, since it's still just a speck of time) it can logicvally be thought that you have not personally watched the entire evolution of this planet. Thus I ask you, what gives you the authority to proclaim anything harmful to nature, if you yourself have not seen the cycle in which nature works?


I could just as easily ask a similar question of you and your assertion that "anything we do is good and natural."

But I won't, because we do not have to be able to directly observe the past and future of the evolution of this planet. Using our ability to think and reason, we can infer possible future concequences of our behavior. I do not need to observe the effects of actually shooting myself in the head in order to know that shooting myself in the head will probably kill me.

Note that I edited my post before you submited your response. We cannot say that "anything we do is good and natural" because it appears that our natural behavior is to prevent and punish those behaviors considered "bad" and "unnatural." How is it that "anything we do is good and natural" if we insist on restricting and punishing some of these behaviors?

Then i merely need to remind you (or at least hope I'm reminding you) that behavior in annimals is entirely dependant on the circumstances in the imediate environment. These behaviors have yet to fully evolve out of us simply because of the short time period in which we have moved from such small groups spread far appart, to the more tightly occupied world which has spurred us into advancement and the adaptation of ourselves to limit our own natural behaviors for the good of our social group.

And then, of course, I have to bring up the fact that what we, as members of a specific social group, of set of social groups, consider certian things as "natural" or "unnatural" in a completely arbitrary relevance to their effect on us as a whole species. The urges of rape and murder, and so many other bad things in many of the sophistocated social groups are still natural to us, although built into us for an earlier time when individual procreation actually meant the survival of a social group. With 6.6 billion humans alive today, the refusal of 1 billion humans to procreate will not seriously hinder our survival as a species. With a group of less then 100 and an infant mortality rate as it is without many of the modern comforts we enjoy today, that decsion of 1/6th, or even 1/100th of the population to not procreate could have dire consequences for the social group as a whole.

As f ro editing, you must have put it in as I was writing the comment.


I could just as easily ask a similar question of you and your assertion that "anything we do is good and natural."

But I won't, because we do not have to be able to directly observe the past and future of the evolution of this planet. Using our ability to think and reason, we can infer possible future concequences of our behavior. I do not need to observe the effects of actually shooting myself in the head in order to know that shooting myself in the head will probably kill me. Of course, it is possible that our inferences may be incorrect; would it not then be best to err on the side of caution, exactly because we may lack direct and perfect knowledge?

No, we don;t have to directly observe every event, but we can't be certian of things we have not directly observed. You know that shooting yourself in the head will kill you because you have been told so (or shown so) by another human. This is part of out social behavior, the spread of information. Without having been told that shooting yourself in the head will kill you (or at least being told the varios parts that work together to result in the derath, such as the importance of your brain, it's frailty, and what a gun does) then you would not know.
And of course you can bring in cognitive thought as to how you would know this from the latter reason as to why you would know shooting yourself in the head will kill you. However that brings us back to the initial question I had, which you have yet to provide proof for. You state this cognitive thought is what seperates us, as humans, from other animals, yet you have provided no thought to it. Now, i have a thesis for the Jugurthine War for one of my professors that I really should be working on, so I would appreciate it if this proof could be presented so that we can continue on with this debate, which will otherwise turn into the cyclic retort and counter retort of the same statements back and forth until it is locked for spam.

Sure, you can chalk up all human actions as "natural", because we came from and are nominally a part of nature.

But we're part of nature in the same way that rabbits or cane toads here in my home country Australia are part of nature. Yes, they're natural animals and they are doing what comes naturally to them, but they are not 'naturally' part of that environment and end up being damaging to that environment. They unbalance the ecosystem which leads to the eventual destruction of that ecosystem if they aren't controlled.

Humans are like this everywhere. In any environment, even in an environment where we supposedly originally developed, humans have become exotic invaders that damage the environment and unbalance the ecosystem, which will, if we keep doing what we're doing, lead to the eventual destruction of that evironment if we don't control ourselves. But, whereas with cane toads in my country, they are limited to a certain area (for now. They're still spreading and it doesn't look like we'll be able to stop them), humans are acting as exotic invaders to the entire planet.

Then i merely need to remind you (or at least hope I'm reminding you) that behavior in annimals is entirely dependant on the circumstances in the imediate environment.
...
And then, of course, I have to bring up the fact that what we, as members of a specific social group, of set of social groups, consider certian things as "natural" or "unnatural" in a completely arbitrary relevance to their effect on us as a whole species.


I still do not understand, then, how one can claim that "anything we do is good and natural" if "good" and "natural" are arbitrary characteristics dependent on circumstances. The word "anything" implies an absolute. Obviously, if our values are arbitary and our behavior changing with immediate circumstances, it is difficult to talk in absolutes.


Now, i have a thesis for the Jugurthine War for one of my professors that I really should be working on, so I would appreciate it if this proof could be presented so that we can continue on with this debate, which will otherwise turn into the cyclic retort and counter retort of the same statements back and forth until it is locked for spam.


Then go work on your thesis and stop trying to scare me with descriptions of your academic exploits. :)

I still do not understand, then, how one can claim that "anything we do is good and natural" if "good" and "natural" are arbitrary characteristics dependent on circumstances. The word "anything" implies an absolute. Obviously, if our values are arbitary and our behavior changing with immediate circumstances, it is difficult to talk in absolutes.

No, the term "anything" connotates a grouping. Not nessicarily an absolute.
"Everything", on the other hand, connottes an absolute.



Then go work on your thesis and stop trying to scare me with descriptions of your academic exploits. :)

Actually, I'm trying to rminde myself to get off the damn NS General board and get to my work. I've been procrastinating weeks and I really need to stop.
Apparently it's not working. I would turn off my computer f I wern't using it to write, lol.
The internet can be a bad infulence when you need to get something done.


Sure, you can chalk up all human actions as "natural", because we came from and are nominally a part of nature.

But we're part of nature in the same way that rabbits or cane toads here in my home country Australia are part of nature. Yes, they're natural animals and they are doing what comes naturally to them, but they are not 'naturally' part of that environment and end up being damaging to that environment. They unbalance the ecosystem which leads to the eventual destruction of that ecosystem if they aren't controlled.

Humans are like this everywhere. In any environment, even in an environment where we supposedly originally developed, humans have become exotic invaders that damage the environment and unbalance the ecosystem, which will, if we keep doing what we're doing, lead to the eventual destruction of that evironment if we don't control ourselves. But, whereas with cane toads in my country, they are limited to a certain area (for now. They're still spreading and it doesn't look like we'll be able to stop them), humans are acting as exotic invaders to the entire planet.

You neglect that our origins, as humans, has long since changed to become more hostile to us then when we had first adapted to it. It has only been our push for survival, a feature natural to us, which has caused us to push on and adapt other lands to our needs.
Also, you need to distinguish the way in which I am using "nature" in this argument. I am using it to define the planet as a whole, as al things are interconnected. Regardless of which ecological subsect of the planet we take up residence in, we are still bound to what we do naturally, as are all other living organisims (and even non living organisims).
Ecosystems in and of them selves are alive, they grow, they change, they adapt, and they die. It is the cycle of life that allows this planet to sustain life. The same process we take upon the planet, animals take upon eachother, microorganisims take upon us, and the universe takes upon itself. We could just as easily blame the death of another human to a virus, saying that said virus is unnatural. But that virus is just as natural as any other living organisim, doing just what it was designed to do. And when a virus kills it's host, effectivly destroying it's ecosystem by the way, it has the luxury of moving to a new one, much the way we have acted. However, when that virus begins to number so much that it can not move to another host, it will die off as it kills off every host. It has done nothing unnatural, it has grown and prospered just like nature intended. What will happen is nature will simply continue on, starting over again if need be, or end completely.
We can not control the universe, or nature, to think we can is foolish, and something both sides of the environmental debate seem to be guilty of.

Anyway, I'm going to turn the internet off now, force myself to work. I'll tag this thread and check it out when I'm done, or tommorow.

Hi,

I really care for my environment a great amount, because it this world has a natural beauty all around, and for people to cut down forests and reshape our lands really is disheartening. This earth is so beautiful and people take it over it seems interested in building profit, and I hate that.

My sentiments exactly! That's why I live in the beautiful State of Washington, where pine trees and nature abound. I hope it stays that way for future generetions to behold, enjoy and hopefully preserve as well. I can only hope and pray! GOD bless!

You neglect that our origins, as humans, has long since changed to become more hostile to us then when we had first adapted to it. It has only been our push for survival, a feature natural to us, which has caused us to push on and adapt other lands to our needs.
Also, you need to distinguish the way in which I am using "nature" in this argument. I am using it to define the planet as a whole, as al things are interconnected. Regardless of which ecological subsect of the planet we take up residence in, we are still bound to what we do naturally, as are all other living organisims (and even non living organisims).
Ecosystems in and of them selves are alive, they grow, they change, they adapt, and they die. It is the cycle of life that allows this planet to sustain life. The same process we take upon the planet, animals take upon eachother, microorganisims take upon us, and the universe takes upon itself. We could just as easily blame the death of another human to a virus, saying that said virus is unnatural. But that virus is just as natural as any other living organisim, doing just what it was designed to do. And when a virus kills it's host, effectivly destroying it's ecosystem by the way, it has the luxury of moving to a new one, much the way we have acted. However, when that virus begins to number so much that it can not move to another host, it will die off as it kills off every host. It has done nothing unnatural, it has grown and prospered just like nature intended. What will happen is nature will simply continue on, starting over again if need be, or end completely.
We can not control the universe, or nature, to think we can is foolish, and something both sides of the environmental debate seem to be guilty of.



You'll note that I never once said humans are "unnatural". Have we recently (in terms of the existence of animal life) become exotic invaders in our own environment? Yes. But that doesn't necessarily equate to "unnatural". As for our original environment, as far as I know, the parts of Africa that humans were believed to have originally developed have not changed all that much since. These days, we load the the idea of 'survival' with a certain level of comfort when speaking in terms of humans, so perhaps we might find those environments too hostile for us to "survive" comfortably, now.

You also seem to be ascribing some kind of anthropomorphic intelligence to nature. As much as I like that idea, in this debate, it's simply unreasonable. Nature doesn't "intend" anything any more than the wind intends to kill someone when it blows down a heavy branch on their head, or the tree intends to kill them by allowing the wind to do that. It is not an intelligent being in the way that we understand intelligence. Speaking of "nature" as a whole where everything is interconnected is convenient, but only useful if you mean in a very, very (very) broad sense. The honey-eater staring at me from the bush outside my window is not very likely going to be connected in any real way to a badger wandering around the woods in Britain.

As for controlling nature, I think you're simply just confused about what the more 'environmentalist' types want. Not for humans to control nature, but for humans to butt out and stop trying to control nature, at least to the degree we do now, and perhaps to rectify some of the negative results of our meddling in the past (though this brings with it a host of new problems.)

Usually "humans are natural so we can keep doing what we like and everything will be fine" is just a cop out from people who don't care, are too lazy to try to do anything about it and want to justify that to themselves, or simply don't want to see what's really going on.

The environment is not some fragile balance like all these nut-bars say it is. The enivronment doesn't change because we do stuff like throw things away in dumps or use cars. We do what we like, and the earth will still be fine. Its a very egotistical standpoint to believe mere humans have the capacity to destroy the earth. in short, go fucking nuts. but stay the hell off my lawn.

The environment is not some fragile balance like all these nut-bars say it is. The enivronment doesn't change because we do stuff like throw things away in dumps or use cars. We do what we like, and the earth will still be fine. Its a very egotistical standpoint to believe mere humans have the capacity to destroy the earth. in short, go fucking nuts. but stay the hell off my lawn.

Sure, the environment as a whole is pretty robust, though it can sometimes take dramatic events for it to correct itself. The only problem is what will likely happen is that humans will be wiped out in one way or another (probably of our own doing), and then everything will slowly begin to recover from our universal crappiness. I think many people want the species still alive and kicking, as well as healthy environment.

It's not egotistical if it's true. We DO have the capacity to essentially destroy the Earth for ourselves. Sure, the cockroaches and sea life might be okay, but like I said, many people would rather we have humans still around as well as an Earth that isn't all fucked up.

The environment is not some fragile balance like all these nut-bars say it is. The enivronment doesn't change because we do stuff like throw things away in dumps or use cars. We do what we like, and the earth will still be fine. Its a very egotistical standpoint to believe mere humans have the capacity to destroy the earth. in short, go fucking nuts. but stay the hell off my lawn.


Interesting standpoint, i like it

You'll note that I never once said humans are "unnatural". Have we recently (in terms of the existence of animal life) become exotic invaders in our own environment? Yes. But that doesn't necessarily equate to "unnatural". As for our original environment, as far as I know, the parts of Africa that humans were believed to have originally developed have not changed all that much since. These days, we load the the idea of 'survival' with a certain level of comfort when speaking in terms of humans, so perhaps we might find those environments too hostile for us to "survive" comfortably, now.

No, but you did follow up with your argument another one that did. In terms of consistency of ideas, I must have interpreted you as having decidedly presumed "unnatural" in a simmilar context as I read Dissonant Cognition's use.

As for the refrence to africa not being changed. To the best of my knowledge we, as humans, came out of Etheopia, which has changed drastically in the past 1000 years from what it was even 3000 years ago. In the 200,000 something years we have been migrating from Ethiopia it could very well be changed moreso then that.

You also seem to be ascribing some kind of anthropomorphic intelligence to nature. As much as I like that idea, in this debate, it's simply unreasonable. Nature doesn't "intend" anything any more than the wind intends to kill someone when it blows down a heavy branch on their head, or the tree intends to kill them by allowing the wind to do that. It is not an intelligent being in the way that we understand intelligence. Speaking of "nature" as a whole where everything is interconnected is convenient, but only useful if you mean in a very, very (very) broad sense. The honey-eater staring at me from the bush outside my window is not very likely going to be connected in any real way to a badger wandering around the woods in Britain.

I appologise if you seem to derive from my statements that I believe in an intelligent design to nature. Indeed I believe in an interconnected design of nature based on physical laws which can not be changed at this level of existance (Gravity, radiation, chemical properties, so on). However I also must assert that I am writing from when we become Humans as we know them today (I'm including pre-modern Humans such as the Cro Magnon in here as well, as us because they are major in this evolutionary step), I am not speaking of our evolution through the various stages of primates, or even earlier our common mamalian ancestors dating back millions of years. I am speaking from the point in time where we come into being as Humans, with preincluded instincts and behaviors from the previous millions of years of evolution, behaviors and instincts we have merely built upon and modified in our new form. This process in and of itself is by no means over, as we have only inhabited this planet in this form for a limited ammount of time compared to other animals, and such we have not had sufficient time to refine ourselves.

As for controlling nature, I think you're simply just confused about what the more 'environmentalist' types want. Not for humans to control nature, but for humans to butt out and stop trying to control nature, at least to the degree we do now, and perhaps to rectify some of the negative results of our meddling in the past (though this brings with it a host of new problems.)

And this is where individual social groups come into play. I was writing in the North American (And possibly European) context of environmentalists. Here they seem more concerned with controlling nature in their efforts to return it to a previous state. The idea of replanting a rain forest is still controlling nature, as much an idea of cutting a rain forest down. Where such an ecosystem will grow, is where such an ecosystem will grow simply because it is a part of nature to spread where an organisim is most suited. We, as humans, have taken this to the extreme of existance and spread all over the place, but this is still part of our nature, the part that insists we find adequate space for our social group to thrive without destroying it (this is directed more to my previous discussion then this one, but I thought I'd throw it in).


Usually "humans are natural so we can keep doing what we like and everything will be fine" is just a cop out from people who don't care, are too lazy to try to do anything about it and want to justify that to themselves, or simply don't want to see what's really going on.

And usually the use of the opposite ideology is a methoed of gaining power from otherwise well-minded people. I don't want you to confuse this argument with the "I'm lazy, or don't care" or whatever you wish to call it, argument because I'm not stating that we can do whatever we want because everything will be fine. "Fine" is a relative term in the broad scale (the exact scale we must look at if we are to descide wether or not we are harming the environment, or wether or not we are natural). The planet Earth is several billion years old, and has been through more drastic climate changes then what is going on now many times before, long before we emerged. The planets ecosystem is constantly changing as a factor of itself, of all living things and what they do (including us). I'm saying that we humans should not try to greedily manipulate nature to keep it at a comfortable level for ourselves, or for any other creature. To do so would harm the natural cycle of things, natures process of change, more then we could comprehend. We would stall billions of years of ecological change simply for our own good, and may end up ruining the planet more then we think by other factors.

If we die off and pump the Earth with greenhouse gasses in the process, this will be no different then before we were ever here. We cut down forests, we starve the atmosphere of oxygen, we exterminate whole species, but we can not destroy all life on Earth (not by a longshot), and the ecosystem will continue. Small plants will grow, will evolve, plant life will replace the CO2 with Oxygen (Or something else, depending on how life goes I guess, one can not predict for sure), and the cycle will continue.
I am advocating, for the sake of the environment, that we do not attempt to manipulate the Earth as a whole to suit the goals we may have, for we will just be messing with the cycle that is life.
Continuing on with our current progress is fine simply because it is what we do, we are effecting the ecosystem with our actions but not directly and intentionally manipulating it for our own personal gain.

The environment will be fine regardless of what we do to it because it will simply change and adapt. Attempting to stall that change will lead to different change which could very well ruin us and life on Earth as we know it. However if we stay the course we will still end up killing ourselves, and the ecosystem will still change and recycle itself into something new.

We are doomed to extinction simply by existing, nothing lasts forever. What I hear when people speak of environmentalism, or caring about the envirnment is the desire to maintain what we have, to become immortal as a species and exist forever. This simply isn't possible, and even if it were it would destroy the Earth's ecosystem because such an ecosystem is based on recycle, on change. Species emerge and die, the climate changes, the geography changes, it's what nature is in it's essence.

Dostanuot Loj,

I will continue with the discussion as soon as you answer my question. If "anything we do is good and natural," why do human societies create and enforce laws for the purpose of discouraging and punishing certain such behaviors?

Testify

Hi,

I really care for my environment a great amount, because it this world has a natural beauty all around, and for people to cut down forests and reshape our lands really is disheartening. This earth is so beautiful and people take it over it seems interested in building profit, and I hate that.
i'm concerned but too lazy to do anything about it.
the natural beauty of our planet is something to be protected indeed, but thats not it for me. there's also the issue that the current rates at which we use natural resources and pollute - to maintain high levels of economic growth and our own rampant consumerism - are unsustainable. the planet and biology work on the basis of balance, and we are tipping it too far by our actions, selfishly and short-sightedly sacrificing long term well being and sustainability for short term profit and riches. its utterly stupid but there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it - which is so disheartening, certainly going on the views of this thread and the actions of certain politicians - and in the future may well look back on this time with disgust at what we did to future generations.

i mean if you know anything about economics, you know what we have today is unsustainable, both in a practical sense and by the economical definition. and yet we continue doing nothing about it because nobody wants to change

some people live in the luckiest part of the world like the fields of England or New Zealand and I would hate that to be deterred by human waste.

I care about the envirnoment and do many things in an effort to reduce, reuse and recycle.
I am raising children to be concservation minded too. We arent wasteful.

My wife and I both work form our home. This is a major savings in fuel consumption and pollution for us.
We actively recycle and compost. We conserve water. Changed all light bulbs in our home to the new low wattage flourescent ones. We are considering solar energy to help offset our electric bill and reduce usage.

<snip!>.

You're right that replanting a rainforest is as much an attempt to 'control' nature as chopping it down is (though replanting is a concerted effort toward that end, whereas chopping it down is more often a simple act of greed on our part).

You're also right that it's very, very unlikely that we will end up destroying all life on Earth, but we seem to be giving it a pretty good shot, and while we probably can't destroy it (unless we seed the entire planet with our plentiful nuclear weapons with objective of obliterating all life, but why would we do that?) we can severely damage it and wipe the human species, at least, from the face of the planet.

Again, you're right (you make a lot of good points, even if I disagree with your primary argument) that much of environmentalist/conservationist/whatever 'movement' is simply yet another way of gaining power and wealth from a group of people with similar views. This in an unfortunate side-effect of the current dominant culture in our society. The "Greed is Good" attitude is so all-encompassingly insidious and pervasive, it's hard to escape even if you have the best of intentions in the beginning. It will take a major (and I mean major) cultural shift before that begins to fall away, but that will probably also end up bringing with it a more responsible attitude toward our environment ("don't shit where you eat"), if we ever get over ourselves and start to look at things more sensibly. But.. uhm.. I'm hurtling away from the point at warp speed.

If we end screwing up the planet with greenhouse effect/global warming (though I personally think it'll be something else that kills us), then yeah, nature will eventually recover and things will return to 'normal', whatever that is after we're finished with it. The point is that we want to keep our environment the way it is now and let it go about its business on its own without undue amounts of influence from one kind of organism. We like the way it is, and we like it to be healthy in a way resembling as it is now and we want to be around, as a species, to enjoy it. Yeah, it's completely selfish when you think about it, but what isn't (Greed is good, right?)?

Save the Earth - ban people. You go first.

I'm a hypocrite when it comes to the environment. I think forests and nature is wonderful as long as i can return to my home and civilisation adfterwards, away from the bloody bugs and wild animals.

I'm a hypocrite when it comes to the environment. I think forests and nature is wonderful as long as i can return to my home and civilisation adfterwards, away from the bloody bugs and wild animals.

There's nothing wrong with that. I believe it's possible to strike a good balance between human civilisation and the wilderness of nature. We're just doing an arse of a job of it right now.

Fuck no. I'll be off this Earth soon enough. Fuck my kids' generation. Fuck the Earth. Fuck humanity. Boy is it good to be Republican.
I agree. Who wants kids? If you want to live in this world you shouldn't even bother. I won't for sure.

i enjoy littering in towns as a protest against people who fly-tip in the countryside - you've already fucked up your neighbourhood, don't fuck up mine :mad: