Topic: My suggestion to environmentalists. - page 3. (Read 5474 times)

Feel free to discuss the mechanics of the problem any time you like: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ecosystems-edge-effects-and-related-environmental-issues-92952

Try discussing, rather than forcing others to say things. It's kind of hypocritical, don't you think? Nobody is stopping you from discussing and sharing knowledge about how the environment works, are they? Instead, what you're doing is demanding that someone state a position on a solution that agrees with you before discussing the mechanics of the problem. Kind of backwards, isn't it?

I bolded some of the key words you used. The first is the word 'discuss'. Nothing wrong with that one. We can do that all day long and nobody gets hurt. The second word was 'regulation'. Despite the fact that you think that it's okay to regulate someone and their things, you rang the philosophical ideology bell (again). You've now just stepped back into the "ideology ring" and put your boxing gloves back on. You may not actually be the one "regulating", but you are complicit in its implementation if you agree with it. Say it ain't so.

If you aren't interested in discussing ideological implementations, why are you in this thread in the first place? Why not just start a science thread outside the 'politics and society' blog? Then you wouldn't get so confused and accosted by the likes of other "politically charged" characters such as myself.

And finally, and last but not least, you use the word 'healthy'. Healthy for who? Me? What if I want to be a big fat slob? Should you regulate what I eat? Make laws that increase the cost of specific foodstuffs you think might ruin my life?

Oh wait, that's not what you mean. Of course not, you're talking about the little creatures and plant life that live on my property. You want to make them healthier... So nice of you to care... Exactly how are you going to achieve that? How many times do I have to ask the same question over and over again? Are you going to sacrifice my life for a creature that roams my land (or hire others to do it for you)?

Because if you do, then I could just as easily consider you a creature too and hunt you like prey. If you stray onto my hunting ground that I've marked (I'm territorial), I might just have you for dinner. All's fair in prey and predator right? We're just a bunch of animals right? No right nor wrong, just food and apex predatory behaviour.

How many libertarians does it take to bolster their own rhetoric and thinking when debating environmentalism?

I present, Environmentalist Dalek:

I expected, when I clicked that "show" link, to be presented with evasion, condescension, and general ass-holery.

I was not disappointed.

What is the relevance of an ideology here? I'm saying (to you and myself), let's not discuss ideology. Instead, let's toss out ideologies, look at how things work, and discuss solutions. So what if I suggest regulation? I am not personally doing any regulating. What I am doing is trying to get others to at least know how things work before they render an ideology that solves the problem.

I don't have an interest in discussing application of an ideology (promoting mine, whatever it may be, or listening to others promoting their's) until we understand what the problems are. Even presupposing I'm as evil and control minded as you think, it's not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is understanding the dynamics of the problem space. Why don't we focus on that?

For example, look at the title of this thread (which I did not create). Isn't it rather absurd, given that its goal is to make recommendations to those who actually take the time to study ecology, environmental science, biology and such from someone who is almost certainly far behind the curve within those fields? Isn't that kind of ridiculous? Before you answer, consider: it's not always healthy to do whatever you want, and especially when you're not fully informed on the ramifications of what you're doing.

FirstAscent,

Say you won't force a man to use his property like you want him to, and we're all ears. Say you won't use coercion or threats to change his opinion about the utilization of his property, and we're all ears. Say you won't commit violence upon another man unless you can directly show trespass or vandalization of the property of others, and we're all ears.

Say it, or you're no different than any other robber baron out there. A political thief, hack, and back-room highwayman parading as the saviour of the Earth. You tell us to concede our ideology. I say, you first. If you're going to engage in the determination of what is "right" and "wrong", you'll have to be the first to abandon your religion.

And just so we're clear science is not religion.

I dare you. I'm waiting...

Closing your ears, are you? Just so you know, while you wrote the above post, I was answering your question in the other thread.

No. I'm not listening, or responding, to any more of your environmentalist drivel until you cogently explain your position in the thread linked above. Now get to it, or shut the fuck up.

I'm glad that you're fucking interested. Like I said, I can recommend some good books for you. There comes a point where your education is not entirely my responsibility. In the mean time, please try and set aside your ideology and answer the question here.

Just as soon as you finish your thoughts in that other post. I am genuinely fucking interested, and your ignoring that thread is starting to piss me off.

Try this exercise: assume, momentarily, that there really is a fundamental difference between humanity's actions and those of animals that is so significant that it justifies thinking about humanity separate from natural ecosystems. I know you're smart enough to figure this out. But unfortunately, you're doing a great job of making my secondary point, which is that you can't research or think without being influenced by your ideology.

Show me I'm wrong. Demonstrate that you are indeed capable of articulating the difference, even if it requires some objective thinking on your part.

Feel free:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ecosystems-edge-effects-and-related-environmental-issues-92952

Awesome! Are you interested in learning about that subject? Someone motivated in not fucking up the environment would be interested in hearing about some books on the subject. Would you like to hear my recommendations?


I am trying to educate you right now.

Now, back to the beavers and humans. Why are you still missing the fundamental difference? I do believe I know why. It's because you can't think objectively about the subject, and you're not well educated on the subject. Do you want to remedy that?

I didn't misquote you, I changed the words for effect. Don't like it, edit my post... oh, wait, you can't. And since I can't edit your post either, your words are safe. Suck it up and deal.

Look, I'm all for not fucking up the environment. What I am not OK with is your methodology for changing our current course. Humanity is part of nature. That we build our dams out of concrete and steel and beavers build theirs out of locally sourced wood only means that they cut down trees to do so. Could we learn a thing or two about dam construction from beavers? Sure. Does that mean you should tear down every human-built dam simply because it was built by humans? No.

You wanna "save the planet"? Go out and educate people. Don't advocate forcing people to change, teach them, make them want to change.

Humanity cannot kill the Earth. It will not happen. However, if we continue on the path we're on, the Earth may well kill humanity. Perhaps the next species to rise to dominance will not be so self-destructive.

Myrkul,

I know you're smarter than this. But by clinging to your ideology, you're coming up short with regard to deriving the answer.

Please don't misquote me.

By the way, it's obvious that you do not understand the difference between beavers and humanity. Think harder. I can help you to determine the difference (and strengthen your understanding) by suggesting you set aside your ideology, as you obviously want the answer to support your ideology. Sadly, that's not a solid way to think.

Try harder. I know you're intelligent enough to get the answer. Think about the beavers, and think what's different about beaver actions and human actions.

Take a look at it now...

Nobody mentioned cancer to be purged in the sense that you meant it. Consider how cancer purges itself though.

Anyway, back to the question at hand. While it's relevant to think of ourselves as part of the ecosystem under certain circumstances in an ideal world, it's important to understand the motivation to understand why there is a difference between a natural ecosystem sans humanity, and one affected by humanity. If you can't grasp what that fundamental difference is, and how it affects ecosystems, then you need to continue studying.