Humans a Supervirus.

[SubRosa]

Call us whatever name you feel is convenient.

When the only concern whether we dump toxic waste in the ocean or not is monetary, we're pretty ****-poor examples of life on this planet...and that's just one example of what some people's greed will compel them to do.

I'm kinda curious why someone would say that the man either had to be a hypocrite or commit suicide. It's possible he is a good, decent person but can also recognize those who aren't.

Mark

Because the level to which he incriminates his own species leaves little room for compromise if one is true to their principles. I suppose I could have added the possibility that he lacks integrity as well. If I had that attitude towards my fellow man being in my presence wouldn't be very conducive to a person's future, because I put my money where my mouth is.

 

[platytudes]

Inka, your point reminds me that the people who are probably the "real" environmentalists...the living ones, anyway...are going to be those who have no wish to have such a small footprint. I bet they'd like to drive a car, to eat meat, to live in a fancy house, etc. but poverty makes them closer to being carbon neutral.

The moral of the story, let's not pat ourselves on the back too much for having a reusable water bottle...I mean, it's a step in the right direction. If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint, take a vow of poverty. Live by the sun, rather than use a compact fluorescent bulb!

 

[oo7genie]

let's not pat ourselves on the back too much for having a reusable water bottle...I mean, it's a step in the right direction. If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint, take a vow of poverty. Live by the sun, rather than use a compact fluorescent bulb!

No one ever claimed that a single persons contributions alone were going to save the world. But consider the difference it would make if everyone used a reusable water bottle. Calculate all the resources needed to produce every disposable water bottle sold in a year, and you will see a significant impact. Not enough to save the world, but enough to take us longer to destroy it. It has to start somewhere. One of the biggest problems with conservation, is that a majority of the world has formed their entire existence around the making and spending of money. It is literally impossible to live in most countries without it. Everything you buy, is comprised of various natural resources, usually created in machines that run on natural resources. We can never truly fix our environmental situation, without destroying our economic situation. Consider the impact on jobs and the economy that not using those same disposable water bottles would have. It's an interesting balancing act, trying to worry about the here and now, as well as future generations. So far, there's no balance involved.

The solution? Personally, while I don't believe that we are a virus, considering the increasing population, the limited resources on this planet, and the fact that we're using them exponentially faster than we're coming up with ways to conserve them, I think more money needs to be put into the space program, in an effort to eventually "infect" other planets, spread out our population and gain more resources. Over time I believe we will be able to develop ways to keep things balanced, but I doubt we will before using up all the resources on this planet.

 

[wesleydnunder]

Because the level to which he incriminates his own species leaves little room for compromise if one is true to their principles. I suppose I could have added the possibility that he lacks integrity as well. If I had that attitude towards my fellow man being in my presence wouldn't be very conducive to a person's future, because I put my money where my mouth is.

So you don't believe that man, as a species, will put his own self-interest above everything else to the complete destruction of habitats and species, as long as the ends are met? That we will prey on everything until we completely erradicate it?

The parallel of us and viruses is quite fitting. A virus multiplies until it eventually kills the host or the host kills it. We are in the process of killing our host. It's just takin' us a long time to do it...it's a pretty big host. Anyone who denies that is practicing a very dangerous form of self-delusion. Just look around the planet at what we are doing to it. Look up the food stocks decling on land and in the ocean. Deforestation, pollution, consumption are all taking a slow, inexorable toll.

Unless we, as a species, decide to do things differently, what do you see as the inevitable outcome?

...and just because I don't have too much faith in our species as a group, doesn't mean I feel compelled to eradicate the rest of y'all. I can be misanthropic without sending you all to Valhalla.

Mark

 

[platytudes]

The biggest form of self-delusion I am seeing is the idea that somehow we will be able to outsmart the need for sacrifice, that technology is going to save the world AND keep us as comfortable as we are used to. Sacrifice is an integral part of environmentalism, and technology is no substitute for it...it just delays the inevitable.

 

[jpappy789]

Threads like these make me want to kill myself...

 

[platytudes]

 

[Rbishop]

:lol:

 

[Rbishop]

The biggest form of self-delusion I am seeing is the idea that somehow we will be able to outsmart the need for sacrifice, that technology is going to save the world AND keep us as comfortable as we are used to. Sacrifice is an integral part of environmentalism, and technology is no substitute for it...it just delays the inevitable.

It is also the LEAST practiced part of it...

 

[Khemul]

Threads like these make me want to kill myself...

They make me want to maximize my carbon footprint. The faster we destroy that annoying ecosystem and replace it with something more stable, the faster people stop complaining about how fragile it is/was. :rofl: