In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
What's wrong with environmentalism?
ElMuertoMonkey
Member Posts: 12,898
Really... what's wrong with it?
Were there some benefits to sewage-choked rivers that I'm not privy to?
I'm not sure where people got the idea that having air thick enough to cut with a spoon was a good thing, but I like my air breathable, my water potable, and my soil not buried under three inches of industrial fallout.
But if you consider those arguments to be too emotional, let's consider this: fishing and hunting are already on the decline - is there really any reason to diminish the already much-reduced number of places that are suitable for such activities?
I'm confounded by the number of people who hurrah industrial levels of pollution only because the likes of Rush Limbaugh say it's a good idea. But chances are ol' Rush lives nowhere near a lead smelter or photo chemical plant. And chances are ol' Rush would pitch a fit of Biblical proportions if someone dumped a hundred gallons of used motor oil into his backyard or his living room.
This anti-environmentalist mindset mistakenly takes as given that conservation and preservation are mutually exclusive with economic growth.
Of course, I advocate moderation in all things - we should not stifle economic development for two trees anymore than we should dig up the entirety of the Great Plains for a strip mine. There should be a balance in between the two so that I can enjoy my clean air and my modern conveniences at the same time.
And given how smart Americans are, I say it's entirely possible.
Were there some benefits to sewage-choked rivers that I'm not privy to?
I'm not sure where people got the idea that having air thick enough to cut with a spoon was a good thing, but I like my air breathable, my water potable, and my soil not buried under three inches of industrial fallout.
But if you consider those arguments to be too emotional, let's consider this: fishing and hunting are already on the decline - is there really any reason to diminish the already much-reduced number of places that are suitable for such activities?
I'm confounded by the number of people who hurrah industrial levels of pollution only because the likes of Rush Limbaugh say it's a good idea. But chances are ol' Rush lives nowhere near a lead smelter or photo chemical plant. And chances are ol' Rush would pitch a fit of Biblical proportions if someone dumped a hundred gallons of used motor oil into his backyard or his living room.
This anti-environmentalist mindset mistakenly takes as given that conservation and preservation are mutually exclusive with economic growth.
Of course, I advocate moderation in all things - we should not stifle economic development for two trees anymore than we should dig up the entirety of the Great Plains for a strip mine. There should be a balance in between the two so that I can enjoy my clean air and my modern conveniences at the same time.
And given how smart Americans are, I say it's entirely possible.
Comments
BW
Some guy(investor)bought a bunch of land(around 1200 acres,I think) North of Austin quite a few years back and somehow,somebody discovered some "previously unknown relative of the daddy longleg spider" livin' in some cave on the place.He had intended to develop this land over time and now has lost all but about 70 acres due to lawsuits,invironmentalists,etc.
Who's right?
I don't know.
BW
Do you have a link to that story? Given the Austin I know, I'm surprised he kept any of his land.
The problem isn't environmentalism. The problem is the current trend toward a twisted form of radical environmentalism that shares many of the long term goals with communism...or at least socialism. The current crop of "environmentalists" care little about the environment and even less about the environmental health and safety of the general public. The only way to comply with their "environmentalism" is to destroy the US economy, which doesn't really help anyone.
+100. I agree wholehearedly.
I'm quite sure most people would agree that it just makes sense to be good stewards of our planet & environent.
But it appears that the vast majority of environmentalsts are extremists. As stated before, they halt progress for the sake of some little known rodent. And obviously put ALL animal/plant life ahead of human life in value.
When it gets right down to it, there IS NO PLEASING THEM, beyond human extiction.
They don't like coal fired electric plants, so we say "how about cleaner nuclear?". Nope, don't like either. Well how about wind power? No way, the blades kill birds and cause bat's lungs to explode.
So what's your solution?
Don't have one. Except for no electricity for anyone.
Well I hate to tell ya MORON. That is NOT AN OPTION.
And what difference does it make if we make N/America into the Garden of Eden, (at our own peril economically) if the rest of the world does what needs to be done to survive and prosper? And eventually takes over us?
There has to be some give and take. But these people are all "my way or none at all". In short they are feaking NUTJOBS who do more harm than good.
The problem isn't environmentalism. The problem is the current trend toward a twisted form of radical environmentalism that shares many of the long term goals with communism...or at least socialism. The current crop of "environmentalists" care little about the environment and even less about the environmental health and safety of the general public. The only way to comply with their "environmentalism" is to destroy the US economy, which doesn't really help anyone.
I also agree with this statement. It's not the environmentalists per se, it's the Al Gores of the world that elect to take advantage of it and lie for profit that makes me sick. I am all for protecting our environment, i.e. teaching us why it's wrong to dump oil change in the drainage ditch, stopping industrial waste dumping, air pollution, etc. The problems is all this crap about global warming that's turning off the general population to listening to the part of the message we need to hear. It's just like trying to eliminate racism by using Al Sharpton and REV (far from it) Jackson to deliver the message. They keep it stirred to profit from it.
I want my grandsons to enjoy fishing and hunting like I did but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater........
It was a week or so ago.
Edit: You'll have to register with them to see it in it's entirety.[:(]
If you choose to do so, go to "archives" type in "daddy longlegs" in the search.
www.statesman.com
BW
The only way to save the environment is to stop the insane population growth. The planet cannot support and indefinate number of people.
Are you volunteering to give up your seat on this planet. Practice what you preach.
There's certainly moderation in your exagerations.[;)]
You only need to look at the californis fires to what is partially wrong with it. And what was that little mouse or whatever it was that needed to have it's habitat saved from building contractor there in California.
+100
Their is Nothing anyone can say to change my mind.
Cal. Fire, Dept. of fish and game have said the same, "Let Us" manage it. not the bureaucrats backed by the wackos.
Cows put out methane and are responsable for a great deal of Ozone depleation.
Yes I have cows but I plan to shove badwrench and a catylitic convertor in each one.[:D]
[:D][:D][:D]
quote:Originally posted by slumlord44
To me, protecting our environment is important. The key here is to use common sense. As with everything, if you do not use common sense, you will have a real mess. The only way to save the environment is to stop the insane population growth. The planet cannot support and indefinate number of people.
Go forth and multiply?
You mean let them kill your child?
Or tie it to a toilet at some goverment place?
Denis, actually he makes sense, but only pertaining to the USA, most of our population growth is in immigration, both legal and illegal, we need to curtail that.
Don