Thread: Calculate your contribution to destroying The Earth

Originally Posted by DSailing

Yes we are a part of nature, but that does not mean that we have dominion over it or the right to destroy it.

Although this calculator is missing much and may be biased, at least it reflects a change in the human focus to maybe just maybe detroy a little less of our home.

"Continue to contaminate your own bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste." - Chief Seattle

The trouble really starts when people begin to think that human presence itself is contamination. And honestly, please explain to me who or what does have dominion over nature or the right to destroy it? That statement in the post I referenced almost sounds religious. Is there some sort of planetary council dictating who does and doesn't have legal rights to the fate of nature? I guess it would be easiest to say that humans are responsible for the health of the planet but do not have right of dominion over it. All of the responsibility without any of the authority just for kicks and giggles.

Chief Seattle compared waste to contamination. Doesn't every living thing go through a cycle of waste and production? Isn't that natural? And who is to say what contamination is? One man's contamination is another man's nature preserve. Who decides what is bad for the planet? The same people that say they are polluting it themselves? What is pollution: whatever we don't like other people doing? If nature decides what is bad for the planet, we will have worms telling us that birds are bad, sand telling us that rain is destructive, bananas telling us that monkeys are perverting nature by using tools to get to them and eat them, and people telling us that breathing CO2 is destroying nature itself.

Those of you who are reading with indignation, maybe it would serve the environment (and your temperament) best to turn off the PC? I don't mean to offend for the fun of it, but my simplistic approach to this subject leads me to make light of of it.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

The trouble really starts when people begin to think that human presence itself is contamination. And honestly, please explain to me who or what does have dominion over nature or the right to destroy it? That statement in the post I referenced almost sounds religious. Is there some sort of planetary council dictating who does and doesn't have legal rights to the fate of nature? I guess it would be easiest to say that humans are responsible for the health of the planet but do not have right of dominion over it. All of the responsibility without any of the authority just for kicks and giggles.

Chief Seattle compared waste to contamination. Doesn't every living thing go through a cycle of waste and production? Isn't that natural? And who is to say what contamination is? One man's contamination is another man's nature preserve. Who decides what is bad for the planet? The same people that say they are polluting it themselves? What is pollution: whatever we don't like other people doing? If nature decides what is bad for the planet, we will have worms telling us that birds are bad, sand telling us that rain is destructive, bananas telling us that monkeys are perverting nature by using tools to get to them and eat them, and people telling us that breathing CO2 is destroying nature itself.

Those of you who are reading with indignation, maybe it would serve the environment (and your temperament) best to turn off the PC? I don't mean to offend for the fun of it, but my simplistic approach to this subject leads me to make light of of it.

There's no need to be obtuse. Simply because you don't understand the root of ethics, or more specifically you don't understand the arguments behind the root of ethics and apparently don't care to (near as I can see that's the only difference between us on the topic) doesn't mean it's incomprehensible.

X

Originally Posted by xman

There's no need to be obtuse. Simply because you don't understand the root of ethics, or more specifically you don't understand the arguments behind the root of ethics and apparently don't care to (near as I can see that's the only difference between us on the topic) doesn't mean it's incomprehensible.

X

It isn't the topic that's incomprehensible to me, it's the conclusion that you, me, or anyone else is to blame for global climate change

[Edit] Also, since you brought it up, explain to me the arguments behind the root of ethics and how they necessarily apply to taking care of Mother Earth the way that global warming proponents say I should? (see, I do care!)

[Edit2] I just realized your boldfaced comment is a link. Am going to read, or at least skim it now

[Edit3] I skimmed the posts in the link you provided and unfortunately didn't find your answers to my questions. I also realized that there's no possible way that you and I could agree on this issue without speaking in person. I can't put my finger on why that is, but I think it has something to do with the wordiness of the posts in the link you provided.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

The trouble really starts when people begin to think that human presence itself is contamination. And honestly, please explain to me who or what does have dominion over nature or the right to destroy it? That statement in the post I referenced almost sounds religious. Is there some sort of planetary council dictating who does and doesn't have legal rights to the fate of nature? I guess it would be easiest to say that humans are responsible for the health of the planet but do not have right of dominion over it. All of the responsibility without any of the authority just for kicks and giggles.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Chief Seattle compared waste to contamination. Doesn't every living thing go through a cycle of waste and production? Isn't that natural? And who is to say what contamination is? One man's contamination is another man's nature preserve. Who decides what is bad for the planet? The same people that say they are polluting it themselves? What is pollution: whatever we don't like other people doing? If nature decides what is bad for the planet, we will have worms telling us that birds are bad, sand telling us that rain is destructive, bananas telling us that monkeys are perverting nature by using tools to get to them and eat them, and people telling us that breathing CO2 is destroying nature itself.

Those of you who are reading with indignation, maybe it would serve the environment (and your temperament) best to turn off the PC? I don't mean to offend for the fun of it, but my simplistic approach to this subject leads me to make light of of it.

I actually liked your post hogaloo, because to answer these questions requires great thought. I will have to ponder upon these for some time, but here is some quick response to at least part of your questions:

I don't think that the humans are the contamination, but the actions in the majority of modern societies causes great destruction for the purpose of profit. Many of these people are under the impression that humans have dominion over the earth, but for me, I don’t think anybody or anything has dominion over the earth other than the universe or great creator. Nor do I think that humans are responsible for the earth, but we should be responsible for our actions.

I think that it is sad that we now have lands that are completely uninhabitable for humans due to our actions that have caused great contamination of the land. I think it is bad when humans destroy entire species and remove diversity from our lands. As Chief Seattle stated so eloquently, we will eventually suffocate in our waste. For me, this is much more than the warming of the planet; it is the destruction of a natural state of life and polluting to the point that extinguishes life.

Yes, it would be best to turn off my PC and possibly remove myself from modern civilization. I don’t want to be hypocritical, and I do strive towards these goals, but it is difficult. Even natives have a hard time living as their traditions would dictate in a world that has been radically changed by conquering a “civilization”, but I strive to do what I can.

I may have more to add to this at a later time as I explore my thoughts on the issues you have mentioned. Thanks again for your post.

Originally Posted by DSailing

Yes, it would be best to turn off my PC and possibly remove myself from modern civilization. I don’t want to be hypocritical, and I do strive towards these goals, but it is difficult. Even natives have a hard time living as their traditions would dictate in a world that has been radically changed by conquering a “civilization”, but I strive to do what I can.

I have found that the choices I make reflect my true beliefs. It could be argued that I don't want to believe because of the changes that would require of me, but I am the only one who can really answer that argument

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I have found that the choices I make reflect my true beliefs. It could be argued that I don't want to believe because of the changes that would require of me, but I am the only one who can really answer that argument

I agree with you that you are the only one that can answer that argument. I think that each person must follow their heart.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It isn't the topic that's incomprehensible to me, it's the conclusion that you, me, or anyone else is to blame for global climate change

Well it's not incomprehensible to respectable climate scientists. That's exactly the way it is. You're of course, welcome to deny it I suppose.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

[Edit3] I skimmed the posts in the link you provided and unfortunately didn't find your answers to my questions. I also realized that there's no possible way that you and I could agree on this issue without speaking in person. I can't put my finger on why that is, but I think it has something to do with the wordiness of the posts in the link you provided.

Well that link is sure a good place to start. I won't presume to start that discussion with you. I am far too ignorant. I must apologise and leave you to your own devices. Others would serve your inquiry much better than would I.

X

Originally Posted by xman

Well it's not incomprehensible to respectable climate scientists. That's exactly the way it is. You're of course, welcome to deny it I suppose.

I smell what you're stepping in, but I'm not following you. I still think global warming is a scam that someone is making a ton of money off of.

Hello everyone, I just returned from Tennessee and this is my first opportunity to look in on the SRP in several days. While I was in the Smokies, I truly enjoyed Nature, the mountains, trees, flowers and birds. I really love the same things the environ-mental-ists do. I just let others choose their own path and NOT try to bend them to my will. I am willing to engage in debate, but I do not subscribe to the theory “Whoever is loudest, WINS.” I WILL discuss practically any matter, but when you begin to get shrill, you've lost your audience! I'm outta here.
I am going to have to live on the Earth, for whatever life I have remaining, so I would not want the planet to be trashed. I have already stated (for the benefit of anyone who cares to look) that I truly believe there are some changes taking place on the Earth. I have also stated that I am not convinced that man is responsible. I once heard it stated that for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD. Just pick your flavor of belief and there are some credentialed people willing to argue for AND against you.
I actually do try to live responsibly. I will use a bath-towel for two, or three days before it is laundered. I use Colleen’s Shaving Soap and a Badger brush when I shave. I am not a recent convert to any of what I have just said. I have re-used towels and I have used soap and a brush for over thirty five years. I bought my first Straight Razor about the same time. I do not buy “throw away” technology.
Yucks Man, I don’t believe we are that far apart, when it comes down to it. BTW, I like the “Brother Skeeter” remark. Who helped you with it? At any rate, our positions might be very similar, but our approach is vastly different.
In my life, I have found that logic means nothing to a zealot. The message of many of the so called ‘experts’ reminds me of the schoolyard bully. That mind-set runs counter to everything in me. I have literally whipped a couple of bullies, simply because they WERE bullies. That was in my intemperate youth, but I STILL hate to see anyone intimidated, whether it is by a thug, or a group of guys in lab coats.
I repeat, the ‘experts’ can’t accurately predict the number of Hurricanes that will form in a particular year. They were calling for a record number of Hurricanes to strike the US, the year following Katrina. There were exactly ZERO. So why should I believe them on “Global Warming?”

EDIT: I didn't come anywhere near 83 on the test. I found it very slanted and that triggered my reaction. I saw a 'bully' trying to force certain answers, or "You're a Planet Killer!" Nor do I plan to start smoking coal. I'm a bit more conscious of pollution than that.

Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter

Hello everyone, I just returned from Tennessee and this is my first opportunity to look in on the SRP in several days. While I was in the Smokies, I truly enjoyed Nature, the mountains, trees, flowers and birds. I really love the same things the environ-mental-ists do. I just let others choose their own path and NOT try to bend them to my will. I am willing to engage in debate, but I do not subscribe to the theory “Whoever is loudest, WINS.” I WILL discuss practically any matter, but when you begin to get shrill, you've lost your audience! I'm outta here.
I am going to have to live on the Earth, for whatever life I have remaining, so I would not want the planet to be trashed. I have already stated (for the benefit of anyone who cares to look) that I truly believe there are some changes taking place on the Earth. I have also stated that I am not convinced that man is responsible. I once heard it stated that for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD. Just pick your flavor of belief and there are some credentialed people willing to argue for AND against you.
I actually do try to live responsibly. I will use a bath-towel for two, or three days before it is laundered. I use Colleen’s Shaving Soap and a Badger brush when I shave. I am not a recent convert to any of what I have just said. I have re-used towels and I have used soap and a brush for over thirty five years. I bought my first Straight Razor about the same time. I do not buy “throw away” technology.
Yucks Man, I don’t believe we are that far apart, when it comes down to it. BTW, I like the “Brother Skeeter” remark. Who helped you with it? At any rate, our positions might be very similar, but our approach is vastly different.
In my life, I have found that logic means nothing to a zealot. The message of many of the so called ‘experts’ reminds me of the schoolyard bully. That mind-set runs counter to everything in me. I have literally whipped a couple of bullies, simply because they WERE bullies. That was in my intemperate youth, but I STILL hate to see anyone intimidated, whether it is by a thug, or a group of guys in lab coats.
I repeat, the ‘experts’ can’t accurately predict the number of Hurricanes that will form in a particular year. They were calling for a record number of Hurricanes to strike the US, the year following Katrina. There were exactly ZERO. So why should I believe them on “Global Warming?”

I like this post, but quite honestly, I don't think telling the global warming advocates how I live will help in the least! If someone is arrogant enough to tell me how I should live my life, and look down their noses at me without even knowing who I am, then they are arrogant enough not to believe me when I tell them how I live!