Would you break the law to save the planet?

Excessive pollution can in no way destroy the planet. It might harm the biosphere but that's about all. And that's only from a human perspective; from the point of view of some life just about any substance is useful somehow. As Burt Rutan recently quipped, "CO₂ is plant food".

I have another answer here which was somewhat implied in another post. But first, about breaking the law; I (and, judging by the normal speed of traffic flow on I264 through Norfolk most days, most people)tend to break the law when they think they can get away with it and it doesn't violate their own moral code.

Your example, stopping excessive pollution; what exactly does this mean? I mentioned in another post the first cyanobacteria killing off more than 90% of the original anaerobes inhabiting the Earth. From the viewpoint of the anaerobes, the oxygen being released by the cyanobacteria constituted a deadly poison. We, however, wouldn't be here without it. So this is subjective to say the least. Further, this planet is the only life-bearing planet we are familiar with. We don't know overall what the normal evolution of life-bearing planets might be. What humans are doing to this planet may be just the normal course of evolution for all life-bearing planets, paralleling the role the cyanobacteria played in killing off most of the anaerobes.

That being said, I don't think we should just continue polluting indiscriminately, largely because a) if we do, we won't be able to live here anymore and b) because we have the awareness to realize what we are doing and the intelligence to be able to do something about it.

> Excessive pollution can in no way destroy the planet. It might harm
> the biosphere but that's about all. And that's only from a human
> perspective; from the point of view of some life just about any substance
> is useful somehow. As Burt Rutan recently quipped, "CO₂ is plant
> food".

Excessive pollution gradually increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which gradually warms up the planet, which gradually results in warmer seas, which gradually results in the melting of ice bergs, which gradually increases the release of methane underneath the sheets of ice, which gradually quickens the very process I have just described.

This does not destroy the planet???

> Excessive pollution gradually increases the amount of carbon dioxide
> in the atmosphere, which gradually warms up the planet, which gradually
> results in warmer seas, which gradually results in the melting of
> ice bergs, which gradually increases the release of methane underneath
> the sheets of ice, which gradually quickens the very process I have
> just described.
>
> This does not destroy the planet???

Actually, no, it does not. It radically alters the biosphere, but does not destroy the planet. The planet could be destroyed by say, the sun expanding to the point where the planet is vaporized, or some HUGE object crashing into it and pulverizing it to debris.

That doesn't come close to destroying the planet. It doesn't even do appreciable harm to the life on the planet. In its history the Earth has been substantially warmer for millions of years at a stretch, been entirely free of ice caps, and has had over twenty times[1][2][3] the CO₂ in its atmosphere than it does now. Yet the planet is still here, not destroyed. Not only did the planet itself survive, life thrived under those conditions.

I'll go a bit further. Arguing that pollution can destroy the planet harms the anti-pollution movement by making it look ridiculous. Clearly no amount of pollution can destroy the planet. As cprasky points out, destroying a planet requires astronomical forces, literally. The sun exploding or a really large asteroid smashing into it (the dino killing asteroid 65Myr ago did a number on the beasties on the planet but didn't appreciably harm the planet itself at all) can do the job but nothing smaller.

So by putting forth obviously false and hyperbolic statements like "we need to stop polluting to save the planet", you make it easy to dismiss efforts to decrease polluting. If you look like a loon, you'll be dismissed as a loon.

> I'll go a bit further. Arguing that pollution can destroy the planet
> harms the anti-pollution movement by making it look ridiculous. Clearly
> no amount of pollution can destroy the planet. As cprasky points
> out, destroying a planet requires astronomical forces, literally.
> The sun exploding or a really large asteroid smashing into it (the
> dino killing asteroid 65Myr ago did a number on the beasties on the
> planet but didn't appreciably harm the planet itself at all) can do
> the job but nothing smaller.
>
> So by putting forth obviously false and hyperbolic statements like
> "we need to stop polluting to save the planet", you make it easy to
> dismiss efforts to decrease polluting. If you look like a loon, you'll
> be dismissed as a loon.

Ok hang on a bit. This pollution idea was only meant as an example, and it wasn't my own belief necessarily. The question asked you if you would break the law in order to save the planet. This requires a subjective answer. Clearly, some people believe that pollution is causing harm to the planet, hence the example.

Also, I didn't mean 'save the planet' as in save the planet blowing up. I meant in terms of saving 'life' on the planet. Life on earth is important; the earth on its own isn't. The scenario I wrote before would cause considerable loss of life. How many people do you think live near the oceans? In third world countries, I don't see the likes of America helping too much when they find NYC under water, do you? They couldn't even save New Orleans.

> That doesn't come close to destroying the planet. It doesn't even
> do appreciable harm to the life on the planet. In its history the
> Earth has been substantially warmer for millions of years at a stretch,
> been entirely free of ice caps, and has had over twenty times
> [1]
> [2]
> [3] the CO₂ in its atmosphere than it does now. Yet the
> planet is still here, not destroyed. Not only did the planet itself
> survive, life thrived under those conditions.

I don't think earth could support the number of human beings currently on the planet if there was twenty times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This, therefore, leads people to take law into their own hands. This is what the question is about!! It wasn't supposed to become all technical.

> Excessive pollution can in no way destroy the planet. It might harm
> the biosphere but that's about all. And that's only from a human
> perspective; from the point of view of some life just about any substance
> is useful somehow. As Burt Rutan recently quipped, "CO₂ is plant
> food".

As shown above, you were the first to use the word DESTROY. The survey question in no way describes this!

I think save the planet might be a tad excessive. Save the ecosystem ON the planet? Yes. The planet itself? Yeah, anything big enough to destroy the PLANET? Not enough laws in the world I could break to stop that. I mean we're talking Galactus sized problem there folks.

Maybe. It would depend on how major the threat was, and how serious a crime I would be committing.

Yes, if saving the planet was more important than whatever was at stake in the lawbreaking to begin with. Ethics are above the law.

Give us some clarification please

Of course.

Would I jaywalk to pick up a piece of trash and throw it away: yes.
Would I murder someone in order to save a spotted owl: no.
Would I engineer a virus that kills off most if not all of the human population in order to stop global warming and thus save thousands of species: maybe

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

I noticed your post, and thought I would do the same. I've actually jaywalked to pic up a piece of trash.

May we live long and die out

Wicksy, get a grip.

> May we live long and die out
>
> Wicksy, get a grip.

I don't see your point here? Are you accusing me of being one of these?

I'm accusing you of having no perspective whatsoever.

> I'm accusing you of having no perspective whatsoever.

Which post?

It's a pretty constant thing.

> It's a pretty constant thing.

(18.244 years old)

Thought so

Some teacher you are, mate.

> George Carlin - Saving the Planet
>

I agree with all that he says!!! The risk is humans, not the planet.

Maybe that's good!!

> Some teacher you are, mate.

Meaning?

Meaning you obviously have no respect for the generations that you are using as propaganda for your almost causeless fight against nothing which you disguise as a mission to save the planet - as you type to me from your PC in your well lit little house.

> Meaning you obviously have no respect for the generations that you
> are using as propaganda

Do I? Have you ever been in my school? If only you knew...oh sorry, if you were at my school, you'd still be a pupil.

> for your almost causeless fight against nothing
> which you disguise as a mission to save the planet - as you type to
> me from your PC in your well lit little house.

My lights are off. Are you watching me?

> Meaning you obviously have no respect for the generations

And I suppose you spend all your money on luxuries rather than saving starving children in Africa?
And I suppose you eat meat despite all the cruelty that goes on in making your fat arse satisfied?

Go back to school little one. I'd love to meet the teachers that taught you. Boy, they must have been students!

Would you break the law to save the humans?

> Would you break the law to save the humans?

No, I would leave that to Melf.

I would save the llamas!

I would save llamamama.

> I would save llamamama.



Or the user GOD!

> |> Meaning you obviously have no respect for the generations that you
> |> are using as propaganda
>
> Do I? Have you ever been in my school? If only you knew...oh sorry, if you were at my school,
> you'd still be a pupil.
>

I don't know what that means.

> |> for your almost causeless fight against nothing
> |> which you disguise as a mission to save the planet - as you type to
> |> me from your PC in your well lit little house.
>
> My lights are off. Are you watching me?
>
> |> Meaning you obviously have no respect for the generations
>
> And I suppose you spend all your money on luxuries rather than saving starving children in
> Africa?
> And I suppose you eat meat despite all the cruelty that goes on in making your fat arse satisfied?
>
> Go back to school little one. I'd love to meet the teachers that taught you. Boy, they must
> have been students!



I am a fudging vegetarian, mate.

I am not a vegetarian, however, who uses their vegetarianism as a badge of arrogance, to 'pithily' put down everybody whose views their own clash with.

Also, GCSE:

English Literature: A*
English Language: A*

A Level:

English Literature: A
Philosophy: A

I hardly think I need to go back to school, mate.

Money for luxuries is almost non existent, as I am living independently (at 18.244 years old) from my parents working minimum wage to help keep a three-bedroom semi running. In Stretford. Do you know how rough Stretford is?

Did you know I was sixteen when Bill dropped the adult filter for me? Did you know I was sixteen when most people got over the fact that I happen to be younger than other people in the world (fancy that!)?

Edit:

Oh, AEA English: Distinction

Top ten percent get put in for it, 50% of them make a grade, and the only possible grades are distinction and pass.

> |> |> Meaning you obviously have no respect for the generations
> that you
> |> |> are using as propaganda
> |>
> |> Do I? Have you ever been in my school? If only you knew...oh
> sorry, if you were at my school,
> |> you'd still be a pupil.
> |>
>
> I don't know what that means.
>
It means your age would pretty much qualify you as a pupil!


> I am a fudging vegetarian, mate.
>

Very good


> I am not a vegetarian, however, who uses their vegetarianism as a
> badge of arrogance, to 'pithily' put down everybody whose views their
> own clash with.
>

That's a bit like giving £10 to you only for them to rip it up. Why are you a vegetarian? Is it welfare reasons? If so, why don't you do your best to help other animals suffering needlessly? And don't respond by saying we have to respect other people's beliefs. You may as well say that we should leave murderers alone as it conflicts with their rights.

I see you are calling me a bigot here. See my post on the latest Frostband post on forum.

> Also, GCSE:
>
> English Literature: A*
> English Language: A*
>
> A Level:
>
> English Literature: A
> Philosophy: A

Well done. However, these are exam marks. You still lack the experience and that is far more important than a certificate.

> Money for luxuries is almost non existent, as I am living independently
> (at 18.244 years old) from my parents working minimum wage to help
> keep a three-bedroom semi running. In Stretford. Do you know how rough
> Stretford is?

No, but I notice you are near Manchester. My girlfriend is there as we speak.

Ok, so give me twenty more years of experience. Give me twenty more years working to support myself, as many people do. The only thing between me and a childless 38 year old is time. Time to what? Time to wake up, go work, come home, watch the X-Factor, like some people really do? But I'm not doing that, am I?

You wanna live in Worsley with the footballers or Prestwich with the Jews or Didsbury with the Oasis fans or what? Manchester is as much a melting pot as any Northern city can be.

The first month we moved here there was a shooting not ten minutes walk away. I'm not proud or anything, I'm not trying to show off, I'm trying to show you that for all your patronising 'life experience' LJD style talks, we could be the same person. I am doing my best to live my life despite bad things that happen.

I am so far removed from Africa. Africa exists but in my day to day life its existence has no impact upon mine. That's ok with me. I'm not gonna save Ukranian dancing bears. I'm not gonna save Indian orphans. I'll pick and choose my own causes, thank you very much, and you can try and fight all the suffering in the world. Its a valiant fight. But it doesn't give you the right to diss everybody else's battles.

I'm a vegetarian out of convenience, which seems pretty incongruous when you see exactly how 'wide' the Quorn range is. My family (the people I live with) don't eat meat. That means meat didn't get bought when they did a shop. I'm not gonna be like 'I can't live without ham sandwiches' so I didn't buy it, either. Then I thought, 'well I might as well do it properly', and stopped altogether. I don't eat chicken. I don't eat pink French Fancies. It's not the hardest thing in the world. And I'll live longer. And I won't get heart disease. And I'm not all for animal rights, I'm sorry, I just choose to interpret the nature of... nature such that eating meat isn't an inherently bad thing. But if I don't eat meat, and that means chickens aren't forced into little cages, well, I suppose that's a good thing.

I am beginning to wonder why we are even arguing anymore as most of what you just wrote I agree with.

But you started this with an attack on me. This survey has been taken completely the wrong way. All it was was a question. Would you or wouldn't you? I wasn't taken any stand on the matter. Yet people assumed I was.

I really am actively trying not to argue. You asked me questions and I answered them.

I attacked you because I don't think your questions are really 'thoughtful' questions, as you seem to think they are. They're not really anything. The hypothetical question you proposed is so out of the scope of any real life occurrence that it fails to have any meaning. You seem to want to provoke discussion, to find out the limits most people will go to for... whatever, but it turns into your berating, survey after survey, against the fact that some people just don't see the point in organic milk or whatever.

You are a missionary. This is not a site specifically for missionaries, so you rile people up like a Jehovah's Witness on a bus. You think you know the answers, but other people just don't care. I know they're backed up by science as opposed to myth, I know animals suffer, and I do feel truly sorry that nobody is listening to you. By saying 'get a grip' - I'm saying 'leave it alone'.

God can save Himself, I would think.

I didn't read any of that, but... nice ass

In a total way? Like the earth blows up if I don't? .. Nahhhh. Screw it.

As given in the example, no. But if it was something like, a giant asteroid is heading toward earth, and it can only be stopped by using an illegal gadget, then yes.

> Also, I didn't mean 'save the planet' as in save the planet blowing
> up. I meant in terms of saving 'life' on the planet.

If you'd asked about "saving life on the planet" I would have responded quite differently than I did for the question of "saving the planet".

> I attacked you because I don't think your questions are really 'thoughtful'
> questions, as you seem to think they are. They're not really anything.
> The hypothetical question you proposed is so out of the scope of any
> real life occurrence that it fails to have any meaning.

As I wrote earlier, it was just a survey. Soooo many people have blown it out of proportion.

> You seem to
> want to provoke discussion,

And if you look at the response, it has certainly provoked discussion. Therefore, a success!

> You think
> you know the answers, but other people just don't care.

Is that a good reason to quit. Should a volunteer, trying to help children in Africa with the government constantly trying to get rid of them, give up or keep going in the hope of saving at least one.

> I know they're
> backed up by science as opposed to myth,

Truth is rather important, to me anyway.

> I know animals suffer, and
> I do feel truly sorry that nobody is listening to you.

That won't stop me. Even if it makes one user think twice at one moment in their life, it's a success.

> By saying 'get
> a grip' - I'm saying 'leave it alone'.

If you had said: 'Leave it alone for your sake, I don't like seeing people ignore you', I would have responded positively.

Anyway, let's just move on. I do agree with bill though, nice ass

Not, if it meant getting caught. You are facing a whole heap of rich people who would rather the planet can go to hell.
You will do not good to anyone, not least the planet, if you are in prison.

But if I could get away with it, yeah I'd go for it.

To stop pollution no. To stop a President who is a total Socialist Pig who wants to destroy the U.S., then the answer is yes.

> To stop a President who
> is a total Socialist Pig who wants to destroy
> the U.S., then the answer is yes.

Translation: By destroy he means undo the damage of the previous administration, and by Socialist Pig he means Nigger.

Maybe ...........if it was easy

I didn't read any of that, but... nice ass ........... I concur + can I have your phone number? *cue stupid grin*

I break the law anytime I disagree with it (or when I can't be bothered to do things properly).

So yes, hypothetically, I would.

And we're likely not going to destroy the planet - we're going to destroy the human race (and most other species). Those are two completely different things.

Maybe it's a good thing.

> |> To stop a President who
> |> is a total Socialist Pig who wants to destroy
> |> the U.S., then the answer is yes.
>
> Translation: By destroy he means undo the damage of the previous administration,
> and by Socialist Pig he means Nigger.
>


You used the "N" word not me so I can see you are a closet Racist... His race has nothing to do with his socialist ideas.

> |> |> To stop a President who
> |> |> is a total Socialist Pig who wants
> to destroy
> |> |> the U.S., then the answer is yes.
> |>
> |> Translation: By destroy he means undo the
> damage of the previous administration,
> |> and by Socialist Pig he means Nigger.
> |>
>
>
> You used the "N" word not me so I can see you
> are a closet Racist... His race has nothing to
> do with his socialist ideas.

Nice try. For starters, I know real Socialists. Obama is not a Socialist. Socialist pretty much has become the new N word. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/carlos-wa... I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Yes! Already have.... well, they tried to say it was illegal when, in fact, they were the ones who were illegal to begin with.

> That doesn't come close to destroying the planet. It doesn't even
> do appreciable harm to the life on the planet. In its history the
> Earth has been substantially warmer for millions of years at a stretch,
> been entirely free of ice caps, and has had over twenty times
> [1]
> [2]
> [3] the CO₂ in its atmosphere than it does now. Yet the
> planet is still here, not destroyed. Not only did the planet itself
> survive, life thrived under those conditions.

I think someone might be in a wee bit of denial. Even if polluting didn't destroy the planet it still can do irreversable damage. Case in point: if you run your car in the garage when it's sealed it will kill you. Now, multilply that by ... oh, let's say.... A BILLION CARS!!!!

Makes no difference to the planet. Kill off a billion people because they run their cars in their garages and we're back to the human population of fifteen years ago. The planet, being a big rock, mostly molten, would be largely unaffected.

The Law isn't binary, by which I mean it's pointless to group together activities purely on the basis that they are all illegal.

This is why punishments change according to the crime committed. I break the law to get home five minutes early, but I'm assuming by the nature of the question that you mean some kind of industrial sabotage?

> Makes no difference to the planet. Kill off a billion people because
> they run their cars in their garages and we're back to the human population
> of fifteen years ago. The planet, being a big rock, mostly molten,
> would be largely unaffected.

The Earth is a big old rock. The Planet is everything from life, water, weather, etc. and I think that was the original question. You seem very intent on making the planet not seem worth saving. if the Planet dies, all ife including humans die. If Humans die the Planet would be better off and that is very sad.

Thanks guys

What I'm intent on showing is that the whole "save the planet" shtick is hyperbole. If your concern is with us messing up the biosphere in such a way that it causes problems for humans, then say that. Don't exaggerate to such an extreme as to say the planet is somehow in danger.

> What I'm intent on showing is that the whole "save
> the planet" shtick is hyperbole. If your concern
> is with us messing up the biosphere in such a
> way that it causes problems for humans, then say
> that. Don't exaggerate to such an extreme as
> to say the planet is somehow in danger.

I completely agree with that. No really. Honestly. Stop looking at me like that, I'm not being sarcastic.

Depends on the law I would be breaking. I wouldn't murder the CEO of a chemical plant thats for sure.

No, I'm not an environmental hippie.

Every now and then you manage to surprise me.

> What I'm intent on showing is that the whole "save the planet" shtick
> is hyperbole. If your concern is with us messing up the biosphere
> in such a way that it causes problems for humans, then say that.
> Don't exaggerate to such an extreme as to say the planet is somehow
> in danger.

I think you are pretending that the question isn't about the environment which is the whole planet, part of the planet. If you want to mince words and make this whole thing about sentences, nouns, and whatever, that's your right. It has nothing to do with the question. I hope to GOD you don't ever get in a debate trying to convince someone about the importance of the environment with using this whole "the planet" argument because you will make the rest of us who really do care about "THE PLANET" look very stupid. Being literal only shows that you aren't thinking creatively.

so this polluter is killing the planet tomorrow but if I, what, blow the place up I save the planet. come on, i think there are legal avenues to pursue. so, it's okay to be a vigilante because YOUR cause is just?

> |> What I'm intent on showing is that the whole "save the planet"
> shtick
> |> is hyperbole. If your concern is with us messing up the biosphere
> |> in such a way that it causes problems for humans, then say that.
>
> |> Don't exaggerate to such an extreme as to say the planet is
> somehow
> |> in danger.
>
> I think you are pretending that the question isn't about the environment
> which is the whole planet, part of the planet. If you want to mince
> words and make this whole thing about sentences, nouns, and whatever,
> that's your right. It has nothing to do with the question. I hope
> to GOD you don't ever get in a debate trying to convince someone about
> the importance of the environment with using this whole "the planet"
> argument because you will make the rest of us who really do care about
> "THE PLANET" look very stupid. Being literal only shows that you aren't
> thinking creatively.
>

Damn, that's what I was trying to say in words...but couldn't

Would you break the planet to save the law?

> |>
> |>
>
> Damn, that's what I was trying to say in words...but couldn't

Yeah, I followed your conversation with him (her?) for a while and said, "Yeah! You tell 'em!!" It's scary sometimes the people out there that are so involved with "How does it affect me personally and the hell with the rest". Why can't people just plain see the beauty of the natural world. God, I would give anything to walk in this world of 20,000 or 30,000 years ago!

Because I think Wicksy would have been better served to ask about the environment instead of the planet if that's what he meant you conclude I am unable to see the beauty of the natural world? Wow, talk about a leap.

The reason I don't like people going off about "saving the planet" from pollution is that I think such hyperbole harms the environmental movement by making it look stupid. Since it only takes a few seconds thought to see that no conceivable amount of pollution can harm the planet itself (no, I don't accept your oddball re-definition of the word "planet"), it's then easy to dismiss anyone who says anything that outrageous and by extension any group they claim to be a part of. I think this is an undesirable outcome.

Shhhh.

> Shhhh.

Headache, Melf?

Snide remark of a guy who should be old enough to know it isn't that funny, Wicksy?

> Snide remark of a guy who should be old enough to know it isn't that
> funny, Wicksy?

I thought it was quite funny.

But you telling risingroad to be quiet because she agrees with someone you don't like...not funny

It's called a joke mate. Really. And I'm sure risingroad can fight her own battles.

> Why can't people just plain see the beauty of
> the natural world. God, I would give anything to walk in this world
> of 20,000 or 30,000 years ago!
>
>

Well, I bet most people do see the beauty of the natural world. Strangely though, humans can appreciate that beauty more when they are comfortable. About walking in that world of 20 or 30 thousand years ago, you would likely love it for an hour or so, then take a shower, have a cup of coffee or perhaps a beer or brandy and reminisce about the splendors of nature. The problem is, that shower and coffee or whatever is not easily or readily available in the world of 20 or 30 thousand years ago.

> |> |>
> |> |>
> |>
> |> Damn, that's what I was trying to say in words...but couldn't
>
>
> Yeah, I followed your conversation with him (her?) for a while and
> said, "Yeah! You tell 'em!!" It's scary sometimes the people out there
> that are so involved with "How does it affect me personally and the
> hell with the rest". Why can't people just plain see the beauty of
> the natural world.

Probably because 20 to 30 k years ago, they were too busy hiding from getting eaten to appreciate the natural beauty around them.


> God, I would give anything to walk in this world
> of 20,000 or 30,000 years ago!
>

Would you give up not having to worry about being dinner by wild tigers. Would you give up heating and AC cooling?

> |> Why can't people just plain see the beauty of
> |> the natural world. God, I would give anything to walk in this
> world
> |> of 20,000 or 30,000 years ago!
> |>
> |>
>
> Well, I bet most people do see the beauty of the natural world. Strangely
> though, humans can appreciate that beauty more when they are comfortable.
> About walking in that world of 20 or 30 thousand years ago, you would
> likely love it for an hour or so, then take a shower, have a cup of
> coffee or perhaps a beer or brandy and reminisce about the splendors
> of nature. The problem is, that shower and coffee or whatever is
> not easily or readily available in the world of 20 or 30 thousand
> years ago.

No, but I can see those are important for you. I lived without electricity and hauled water for 2 years in the mountains. Yeah, both are great (via solar and wind) AND I still would like to experience this place before humans became locusts and dead inside. I believe differently about how many people see the natural world as beautiful. I live in a very alternative town and 10 miles away is the logging capital of the world and our forests look like mine fields and yet these people STILL think it is ok to destroy to make money. In the 60s and earlier they didn't do the clear cuts and left the forests in tact. Then machines to log were created..... and the whole Northwest was attempting to feed the world's wood hunger with our trees, by-passing the mills and milling them out in the ocean by foreign companies. Yet, try to tell a logger or mill worker these facts, that their own bosses were actually putting them out of work behind the scene and they will yell, "tree hugger".

I like a good wine or liquer, though, every once in a while. :o)

Thanks for your comment.

> |> |> |>
> |> |> |>
> |> |>
> |> |> Damn, that's what I was trying to say in words...but couldn't
> |>
> |>
> |> Yeah, I followed your conversation with him (her?) for a while
> and
> |> said, "Yeah! You tell 'em!!" It's scary sometimes the people
> out there
> |> that are so involved with "How does it affect me personally
> and the
> |> hell with the rest". Why can't people just plain see the beauty
> of
> |> the natural world.
>
> Probably because 20 to 30 k years ago, they were too busy hiding from
> getting eaten to appreciate the natural beauty around them.
>
>
> |> God, I would give anything to walk in this world
> |> of 20,000 or 30,000 years ago!
> |>
>
> Would you give up not having to worry about being dinner by wild tigers.
> Would you give up heating and AC cooling?
>
>
This is the first year I have had A/C and I haven't had TV in 22 years. I have lived in the mountains for years. I think the people back then were even more spiritual than today. They WERE nature, the wilds. It's funny, because there are a lot of people replying to me "YOu would actually give up these things!?" like it is scary. :o) I don't think we have tigers around here. :o) :o)

> No, but I can see those are important for you.

Then your eyesight is better than mine.

> I lived without electricity
> and hauled water for 2 years in the mountains. Yeah, both are great
> (via solar and wind) AND I still would like to experience this place
> before humans became locusts and dead inside.

Do you have something against locusts? They too were part of that world of 20 or 30 thousand years ago that you would love to walk in. What makes you so sure that humans are dead inside? There may be a few who are, I have run across them from time to time, usually nodded out, smacked back in an alley waiting for time for their next fix. But this is far from the reality of most of us.

When you were hauling water for 2 years, did you use a bucket? Was it steel? Or perhaps wooden. Plastic would be lightest of all. The point here of course is that 20 or 30 thousand years ago, if you were to haul water anywhere, you have to make a bucket first. No steel mills, no cabinet shops, no petroleum refineries to even come up with the raw materials to make the bucket from. You would be stuck with making a wooden bucket or one from the hide or belly of some beast you killed of a large enough size to make a useful bucket. So you set out to make your bucket. What tools are you going to use? You have to make those first.

> I believe differently
> about how many people see the natural world as beautiful. I live in
> a very alternative town and 10 miles away is the logging capital of
> the world and our forests look like mine fields and yet these people
> STILL think it is ok to destroy to make money.

Is it okay for a beaver to destroy the habitats (and sometimes lives) of other creatures when they dam a stream to create a lake for themselves?

Believe me, I have no problem with the concept of environmentalism. My major problem is with people who sincerely believe that people are purely evil, greedy or stupid. Or those who believe that nature would be better off without people. I think people like this are missing the larger picture. In this larger picture, people and all their works are products of nature as surely as the beaver and his dam are.

> Thanks for your comment.

Hey, any time.

Let's see if I can remember all your comments....

I wouldn't have to haul water that long ago because most tribes lived near water and shared it with wild life.

I don't have anything against people because I love most. But, do you live in an area where it is very evident of the "worse" people can do to the environment? A lot of people live in the city and don't see the damage kept out of sight.

The good news is that logging is dying out here, alternative building is happening, and vinyards are cropping up everywhere. We are getting quite the attention from wine people. AND all in moderation.....

I love all insects. I love snakes, isn't that a trip. I was just referring to an insect that is used quite often and wouldn't be out of control if their natural predator was also high in numbers. Maybe that is insensitive of me to use an animal that doesn't have anything to do with people's path of choice. I own that. :o)

I would love to go to 20,000 years or more to see and experience. Not necessarily make it my world though it might be hard emotionally coming back. I think I got such a huge response from that comment because people thought that if I went there I couldn't get back. :o) Aliens, maybe? Could they do it? :o)

Growing up in the mountains has me a little bit sensitive about all that is happening to our natural world. AND I see so many good things happening, too. I am actually an optimist. Metaphysical.

We rural people are sort of an endangered species, too. Yesterday I harvested a few wild milkweed (you can eat the huge globe flowers they produce) to plant near my place to attract Monarch butterflies.
>

> We rural people are sort of an endangered species, too. Yesterday
> I harvested a few wild milkweed (you can eat the huge globe flowers
> they produce) to plant near my place to attract Monarch butterflies.
>


You can also eat the young shoots (entire plant) and the seed pods as well as the seeds. I haven't tried it yet, because around here the only places I see milkweed is growing alongside busy roads and I am hesitant to eat anything that heavily exposed to automobile exhaust. If I ever come across any growing in a field, I'll try t and let you know how it is.

> I love all insects. I love snakes, isn't that a trip. I was just referring
> to an insect that is used quite often and wouldn't be out of control
> if their natural predator was also high in numbers. Maybe that is
> insensitive of me to use an animal that doesn't have anything to do
> with people's path of choice. I own that. :o)
>

Would that also include mosquitoes and fireants too. Be outside just once for one of their rush hours and after getting bitten enough, and tell us how much you love them after that.


> I would love to go to 20,000 years or more to see and experience.
> Not necessarily make it my world though it might be hard emotionally
> coming back. I think I got such a huge response from that comment
> because people thought that if I went there I couldn't get back. :o)
> Aliens, maybe? Could they do it? :o)
>

Rather than see the Earth 20k years ago, I would love to experience it 20k years into the future. Sure, I would miss out on the sounds of nature and spiritual enlightenment. But I would get to teleport at near lightspeed, download the whole season of some new show on Fox in 5 minutes (hopefully the writing won't degenerate over the centuries), and experience live porn in 3-D as if I was actually there. Sounds like a pretty fair tradeoff.


> We rural people are sort of an endangered species, too. Yesterday
> I harvested a few wild milkweed (you can eat the huge globe flowers
> they produce) to plant near my place to attract Monarch butterflies.
>

Ironically, people living in cities is actually greener than the rural lifestyle. For all your talk about wanting to preserve the environment, you're probably contributing more to its destruction (at breaking even at best) by actually living there.

Cool that you know that. I think the whole world is leaning towards gentleness. I really do. Do you study herbs even if just a hobby? (Hobby for me... sometimes life saving).

Some day we prob. will time travel. That's exciting. You go up, I'll go down. :o) A lot of the people from the city think the rural area is just farms, eating animals, back-woods thinking. There are a lot of us who are very enlightened and connected. We just don't get the attention. I am 4th generation (or more) of a wood nymph. :o)

>
> Ironically, people living in cities is actually greener than the
> rural lifestyle. For all your talk about wanting to preserve the
> environment, you're probably contributing more to its destruction
> (at breaking even at best) by actually living there.


How would you know if I would be destructive on the environment if you haven't seen how I live. Solar panels, not having a lawn, etc. Have you ever lived in the wilds or rural area? Trust me.... there are quite a few city people who like to be green but are not close to nature. I don't judge them because I'm not seeing day to day how they are living just like you don't know how I live day to day. Maybe you are assuming because of some experience you had with some rural people that maybe trhey all are bad.

I don't want to beef here but that is a pretty strong statement about me being more destructive when you don't even know how I live.

> Cool that you know that. I think the whole world is leaning towards
> gentleness. I really do. Do you study herbs even if just a hobby?
> (Hobby for me... sometimes life saving).

Yes I do. One of my hobbies is foraging for food among what wild parts of Hampton Roads there are. Every spring I pig out on poke weed, lamb's quarters, curly dock, etc. In May or June, depending on the weather, it's time to harvest some cattail tops. Got to get to them before they turn brown and fuzzy though...

Cool! I love lambsquarters. Curly dock is a good tonic for women's ailments. Don't worry... I don't think you will grow breasts. :o) My sister would grind out the starch in the cattail rhizomes (sp?) in a bucket of water, let the water evaporate then use the flour along with the tops, like you mentioned, and make a whole cattail pie.

> Cool! I love lambsquarters. Curly dock is a good tonic for women's
> ailments. Don't worry... I don't think you will grow breasts. :o)
> My sister would grind out the starch in the cattail rhizomes (sp?)
> in a bucket of water, let the water evaporate then use the flour along
> with the tops, like you mentioned, and make a whole cattail pie.

I would like to make cattail flour sometime, but dang! that's one whale of a load of work. You have to gather the rhizomes(yes, you spelled it correctly), peel 'em and keep soaking 'em and draining off the water without losing the starch....and it takes buttload of rhizomes to get any really useful amount of flour. One year, I'll take some time off during the cattail season and try that cattail pie. Sounds real good.

I would tear the label from a mattress to save Earth from evil invaders from the planet Zongo. Provided that it was absolutely necessary.

Would you give these invaders loads of pot?

I'd sell heroin to school children.