Originally posted by Faid

Question: What will cause the most overall decrease of our carbon footprint?

1.Killing the pet
2.Killing and eating the pet
3.Having the pet eat the baby, then killing it
4.Buying a new hi-tec eco car like Prius (complete with remote, bluetooth, mp3, DVD, GPS, HUD and photon torpedoes), and using it to run over the pet
5.Carpooling to work with 3 friends in your old Corolla.


Personally, since I have no pet, I'll have to go with the last option. Hope I'm doing the best for the planet...

6. put all the greenies in a big stew and feed them to our pets.

Originally posted by Sparko

6. put all the greenies in a big stew and feed them to our pets.

- T

Originally posted by Sparko

6. put all the greenies in a big stew and feed them to our pets.

- T

Originally posted by Tiggy

- T

I love the kitty. I think these pictures and the ones of the babies on pork and babies cans and the poster illustrate that in the environmental movement there is a huge anti-human bias. For some reason environmentalists think humans are not natural. We are as natural as coral or any other animal on the planet. But the enviro-wackos want to eliminate people as if what we do is not natural. In some sense that makes them creationists because if man is a special creation of God, he is not natural. If man evolved, he is natural.

Originally posted by grmorton

I love the kitty. I think these pictures and the ones of the babies on pork and babies cans and the poster illustrate that in the environmental movement there is a huge anti-human bias. For some reason environmentalists think humans are not natural. We are as natural as coral or any other animal on the planet. But the enviro-wackos want to eliminate people as if what we do is not natural. In some sense that makes them creationists because if man is a special creation of God, he is not natural. If man evolved, he is natural.

Sorry Glenn, but you couldn't be more wrong if you tried on that one. Environmentalists don't think human are not natural. Environmentalists just want people to understand that humans are not special, and in fact have we a huge vested interest in maintaining the ecosystem we all live in. If we continue to overuse natural resources without conservation, if we continue to kill species and reduce biodiversity, the home we are destroying is our own.

That's the message, and the more people who hear it the better.

- T

I think a problem with a lot of causes is that the over-the-top idjits get all of the attention because, well, over-the-top idjits are more interesting.

For every idjit that worries about the carbon footprint of Fido, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of people disposing of their chemicals properly, sorting the recyclables out of their trash into a separate bin, trying to conserve water, or whatever measures work best for them. For me, it's working close to where I live and trying to keep the thermostat down in the winter and up in the summer (despite my roomie) and generally using the least water I have to in the home and garden. I don't water the grass. Brown grass needs mowed less frequently, and that's not conservation so much as it is laziness.

Most folks aren't looney enough to worry about Fido's carbon footprint. They figure that it's no more important in the scheme of things than what the bear does in the woods.

Originally posted by Tiggy

Sorry Glenn, but you couldn't be more wrong if you tried on that one. Environmentalists don't think human are not natural. Environmentalists just want people to understand that humans are not special, and in fact have we a huge vested interest in maintaining the ecosystem we all live in. If we continue to overuse natural resources without conservation, if we continue to kill species and reduce biodiversity, the home we are destroying is our own.

That's the message, and the more people who hear it the better.

- T

I strongly disagree. We don't go telling coral not to change the environemenst along the coast, driving out mollusks who dig into the mud. When rabbits expand their numbers we don't think it is immoral for them to do so. We don't tell them to limit their births so that they won't eat the prairie up.

But we do this for humans. Please tell me that we don't tell humans not to have babies, and show me that no one advocates this action for humans, but not for rabbits.

Originally posted by Crow

I think a problem with a lot of causes is that the over-the-top idjits get all of the attention because, well, over-the-top idjits are more interesting.

For every idjit that worries about the carbon footprint of Fido, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of people disposing of their chemicals properly, sorting the recyclables out of their trash into a separate bin, trying to conserve water, or whatever measures work best for them. For me, it's working close to where I live and trying to keep the thermostat down in the winter and up in the summer (despite my roomie) and generally using the least water I have to in the home and garden. I don't water the grass. Brown grass needs mowed less frequently, and that's not conservation so much as it is laziness.

Most folks aren't looney enough to worry about Fido's carbon footprint. They figure that it's no more important in the scheme of things than what the bear does in the woods.

So why do the environmentalists not condemn the idjits? Like YECs who never criticize another YEC, I find it very very rare that environmentalists criticize another environmentalist.

Originally posted by grmorton

I strongly disagree. We don't go telling coral not to change the environemenst along the coast, driving out mollusks who dig into the mud. When rabbits expand their numbers we don't think it is immoral for them to do so. We don't tell them to limit their births so that they won't eat the prairie up.

But we do this for humans. Please tell me that we don't tell humans not to have babies, and show me that no one advocates this action for humans, but not for rabbits.

While I don't generally agree with the enviro whackos, we as humans are not mere animals, and we do have a responsibility to care for this planet God has given us. We are therefore no more free to indulge our base nature in this reqard (stewardship of God's gift to us) than we are free to indulge our base (animal) nature in other areas. The animals, OTOH, are ... err up to the point we are willing to let them (except of course for cockroaches, which are the true owners of the planet)

One note: This statement is based solely on this one comment Glenn has made here that is in bold. It is out of context for the thread, perhaps even for the post, and should not be taken as agreement with whatever prompted Glenn's response here

I was just browsing and it caught my eye.


JIm

Originally posted by grmorton

I strongly disagree. We don't go telling coral not to change the environemenst along the coast, driving out mollusks who dig into the mud. When rabbits expand their numbers we don't think it is immoral for them to do so. We don't tell them to limit their births so that they won't eat the prairie up.

But we do this for humans. Please tell me that we don't tell humans not to have babies, and show me that no one advocates this action for humans, but not for rabbits.

Glenn, you are seriously out of touch with reality.

Rabbits in Australia

In Australia, rabbits are the most serious mammalian pests, an invasive species whose destruction of habitats is responsible for the extinction or major decline of many native animals such as the Western Quoll.[citation needed] Annually, European rabbits cause millions of dollars of damage to crops.

Effects on Australia's ecology

The effect of rabbits on the ecology of Australia has been devastating since their introduction from Europe in the 18th century. Rabbits are suspected of being the most significant known factor in species loss in Australia. The loss of plant species is unknown at this time. Rabbits often kill young trees in orchards, forests and on properties by ringbarking them.[1]

Rabbits are also responsible for serious erosion problems as they eat native plants which leave the topsoil exposed and vulnerable to sheet, gully and wind erosion. The removal of this topsoil is devastating to the land as it takes many hundreds of years to regenerate.

Control measures

A Royal Commission was held to investigate the situation in 1901. Once the problem was understood, various control methods were tried to limit or reduce the population of rabbits in Australia. These methods had limited success until the introduction of biological control methods in the latter half of the 20th century.

Conventional control measures

Shooting rabbits is one of the most common control methods. However, this has little noticeable effect on rabbit populations.

Destroying warrens through ripping (a procedure where rabbits are dismembered or buried alive as a bulldozer dragging sharp tines is driven over their warrens/burrows)[7], ploughing, blasting, and fumigating is widely used especially on large farms (known as 'stations'). The sandy soil in many parts of Australia makes ripping and ploughing a viable method of control, and both tractors and bulldozers are used for this operation.

Poisoning is probably the most widely-used of the conventional techniques, as it requires the least effort. The disadvantage is that the rabbit cannot be used as food for either humans or pets afterward.

Another technique is hunting using ferrets, where ferrets are deployed to chase the rabbits out to be shot or into nets set over the burrows. Since ferrets are limited in the number of rabbits they can kill, this is more a hunting activity than a serious control method.

Historically, trapping was also frequently used; steel-jawed leg-holding traps were banned in most states in the 1980s on animal cruelty grounds, though trapping continues at a lower level using rubber-jawed traps. All of these techniques are limited to working only in settled areas and are quite labour-intensive.

In 1907, the rabbit-proof fence was built in Western Australia between Cape Keraudren and Esperance to try to control the rabbit population. European rabbits can both jump very high and burrow underground. Even assuming a perfectly intact fence stretching for hundreds of miles, and assuming that farmers or graziers do not leave gates open for livestock or machinery, it was unlikely to be a success.

Biological measures

Releasing rabbit-borne diseases has proven somewhat successful in controlling the population of rabbits in Australia. In 1950, after research carried out by Frank Fenner, Myxomatosis was deliberately released into the rabbit population, causing it to drop from an estimated 600 million to around 100 million. Genetic resistance in the remaining rabbits allowed the population to recover to 200-300 million by 1991.

To combat this trend, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) developed and accidentally released calicivirus (also known as Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease or RHD) in 1996. The success of the virus was found to be higher in extreme heat. This was because it appears there is another calicivirus in the colder, wetter areas of Australia, and that this virus was immunising rabbits against the more virulent form.

The Australian Government refuses to legalise a vaccine to protect pet rabbits against Myxomatosis, for fear the rabbit may escape and transmit resistance to the disease[citation needed]. A legal vaccine exists in Australia for RHD. There is no cure for either Myxomatosis or RHD, and many affected pets are euthanised. In Europe, where rabbits are farmed on a large scale, they are protected against myxomatosis and calicivirus with a genetically modified virus.[8] The virus was developed in Spain, and is beneficial to rabbit farmers. If it were to make its way into wild populations in areas such as Australia, this could create a population boom.

Wiki source

I suppose you've never heard of zebra mussels, or snakehead fish, or efforts to control any other human introduced invasive species either?

- T

Originally posted by grmorton

"According to the authors of the new book, Time to Eat the Dog, it takes 0.84 hectares of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000 kilometers a year requires 0.41 hectares. Dogs are not the only environmental sinners. The eco-footprint of a cat equates to that of a Volkswagen Golf."

"If that's troubling, there is an even more shocking comparision. In 2004, the average citizen of Vietnam had an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares. For an Ethiopian, it was just 0.67 hectares. In a world where scarce resources are already hogged by the rich, can we really justify keeping pets that take more than some people?" Anonymous, "Cute, Fluffy and Horribly Greedy," New Scientist, Oct 24, 2009, p. 5

USA! USA! USA!

Originally posted by grmorton

So why do the environmentalists not condemn the idjits? Like YECs who never criticize another YEC, I find it very very rare that environmentalists criticize another environmentalist.

I think it's the human tendency to reckon that the enemy of my enemy is logically my friend, coupled with "it's better to have them in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in."

Originally posted by Tiggy

Sorry Glenn, but you couldn't be more wrong if you tried on that one. Environmentalists don't think human are not natural. Environmentalists just want people to understand that humans are not special, and in fact have we a huge vested interest in maintaining the ecosystem we all live in. If we continue to overuse natural resources without conservation, if we continue to kill species and reduce biodiversity, the home we are destroying is our own.

That's the message, and the more people who hear it the better.

- T

With a few it really depends upon what you mean by “natural”

David Foreman, co-founder of “Earth First!” has remarked that “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental,” as well as “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”

Paul Watson, a founder of “Greenpeace,” said that, “We, the human species, have become a viral epidemic to the earth.” More specifically he described humanity as the “AIDS of the earth.”

Others hope for the right disease to come along.

That is what David Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service wrote in reviewing Bill McKibben’s “The End of Nature,” for the “Los Angeles Times,” in 1989: “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planet… Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Graber has also stated that, “We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have … more value to me than another human body, or a billion of them.”

A newsletter from “Earth First!” stated that, “If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS.”

And from an editorial in the “Economist” from several years back: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing… This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.”

Stewart Brand, founding editor and publisher of the Whole Earth Catalogue, wrote that, “We have wished, we eco-freaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism; our appropriate technology, our homemade religion – guilt free at last!”

And over a decade ago, Britain’s Prince Philip, who heads the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), publicly fantasized about being reincarnated as a “killer virus” with a mission to eradicate “surplus” human population. Considering his many racist slurs over the years, one reasonably wonders if he is dreaming of genocide.

Originally posted by Tiggy

Glenn, you are seriously out of touch with reality.



I suppose you've never heard of zebra mussels, or snakehead fish, or efforts to control any other human introduced invasive species either?

- T

Yeah, it is amazing how anyone who dares disagree with you is automatically designated as 'out of touch with reality'. In fact that is the standard leftist approach to life. Everyone but them are nuts. I was a darlin' when I was discussing topics you approve of (how badly YECs explain the data) but the minute I disagree with you, it seems that I suddenly am out of touch with reality. What utter crappola!

Due to the 3 days of enforced absence from here The fervor has kind of cooled.. I still stand by my comment that the environmentalists act as if mankind is not a natural phenomenon, and thus they act as if we are the entire problem the world faces. That, philosophically speaking, makes them treat mankind as if he is unnatural, as if mankind is a created species, only in the envro world, the creating God is evil and thus his creation, us, must be restricted. When men do what they do it is treated as evil. When corals started building the Great Barrier reef, it destroyed the previous environment and no doubt pushed some species into extinction. We don't condemn the corals and say their actions are unnatural. The Barrier Reef may only be 600 kyr old. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2001/601/2

See also Geology; June 2001; v. 29; no. 6; p. 483-486; http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/c...tract/29/6/483



As to the killing of animals, like zebra mussels, rabbits etc, iIn those cases, we are acting as if intercontinental dispersal of animals never happened before mankind came along. It has happened all throughout evolutionary history without mankind's involvement. Yes, it happens more often with men but it is often because men think they are wiser than they are and introduce a species to solve another problem. But such killings actually confirm my position. The desire to fiddle with the environment is based upon the concept that only the species currently inhabiting a place are to be there--as if some good God placed each animal in its place and one should never let a new one in. Such thinking is in reality a kind of Rouseauian yearning for the Garden of Eden--to re-establish what existed in the past.

There truly is an element of religiousity in the Environmental movment. Modern technology is bad, chopping trees is bad, Any development for the benefit of mankind is bad. Rousseau's noble savage has morphed into a noble unspoilt (by man) nature.

As to reality and my being in or out of touch with it. It would be better if you would use some non-egocentric standard.

I saw Oxmixmudd's comment. I too believe that we should care for the world other species etc. The problem with these debates is that any criticism of enviro-wackoness is automatically taken to mean that the critic wants to poison everything in sight, and kill of as many species as is practical as quickly as possible. I would note how quickly it was claimed that I am out of touch with reality to back up my assertion that criticism is dealt with as if insanity is the cause of the criticism. Such black-white ferver on this is another evidence that it is a religion not a science.

Originally posted by rogue06

With a few it really depends upon what you mean by “natural”

David Foreman, co-founder of “Earth First!” has remarked that “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental,” as well as “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”

Paul Watson, a founder of “Greenpeace,” said that, “We, the human species, have become a viral epidemic to the earth.” More specifically he described humanity as the “AIDS of the earth.”

Others hope for the right disease to come along.

That is what David Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service wrote in reviewing Bill McKibben’s “The End of Nature,” for the “Los Angeles Times,” in 1989: “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planet… Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Graber has also stated that, “We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have … more value to me than another human body, or a billion of them.”

A newsletter from “Earth First!” stated that, “If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS.”

And from an editorial in the “Economist” from several years back: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing… This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.”

Stewart Brand, founding editor and publisher of the Whole Earth Catalogue, wrote that, “We have wished, we eco-freaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism; our appropriate technology, our homemade religion – guilt free at last!”

And over a decade ago, Britain’s Prince Philip, who heads the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), publicly fantasized about being reincarnated as a “killer virus” with a mission to eradicate “surplus” human population. Considering his many racist slurs over the years, one reasonably wonders if he is dreaming of genocide.

Pearls to you Rogue, from this infectious agent of plague on the earth to another!!


As to that highly inbred Prince Philip's statement, when they say 'surplus' humanity, they always mean those lesser beings--the poor and destitute, but not the high-minded guys like the British Royalty. No sponges of huge amounts of money taxed off the body politic are certainly not to be considered 'surplus'. They are absolutely NECESSARY!!!!


Homework for Tiggy who thinks I am out of touch with reality: Would you be so kind as to take each of those above statements and explain why each isn't to be considered 'anti-human'????

Originally posted by grmorton

Yeah, it is amazing how anyone who dares disagree with you is automatically designated as 'out of touch with reality'. In fact that is the standard leftist approach to life. Everyone but them are nuts. I was a darlin' when I was discussing topics you approve of (how badly YECs explain the data) but the minute I disagree with you, it seems that I suddenly am out of touch with reality. What utter crappola!

You are fine when discussing geology. You are completely out of touch when discussing the need to maintain ecological balance and how those ends are being attempted.

Thing is Glenn, Earth's ecology has had millions of years to get to a balanced, equilibrium position. Humans are the first species to develop the technology to royally screw up that balance - like importing rabbits to Australia - in just a few hundred years.

Why does it get you so upset when people recognize that ecological stability is important to maintain and/or correct for our own long term benefit?

Due to the 3 days of enforced absence from here The fervor has kind of cooled.. I still stand by my comment that the environmentalists act as if mankind is not a natural phenomenon, and thus they act as if we are the entire problem the world faces.

As Crow pointed out, you are tarring all those who are environmentally conscious based on the position of a few way out extremists. How would you feel if someone condemned all Christians based on the YEC Jorges of the world?

As to the killing of animals, like zebra mussels, rabbits etc, iIn those cases, we are acting as if intercontinental dispersal of animals never happened before mankind came along. It has happened all throughout evolutionary history without mankind's involvement.

It has never happened so quickly, and caused so much damage. Those two conditions are the direct result of human mismanagement and carelessness.

Yes, it happens more often with men but it is often because men think they are wiser than they are and introduce a species to solve another problem. But such killings actually confirm my position. The desire to fiddle with the environment is based upon the concept that only the species currently inhabiting a place are to be there--as if some good God placed each animal in its place and one should never let a new one in. Such thinking is in reality a kind of Rouseauian yearning for the Garden of Eden--to re-establish what existed in the past.

You really can't be that dense, can you? No one is arguing for a creating or maintaining a perfect Garden of Eden. Again, the hundreds of thousands of interacting feedback loops that created the ecology took millions of years to establish a balanced equilibrium, and that human interaction has happened way too quickly to allow the loops to keep up. We're applying major changes way too quickly and the whole shebang is in danger of going catastrophic open loop, and taking our sorry butts right down with it when it crashes. Do I really need to show you all the scientific studies on the importance of maintaining biological diversity? Or is that just a 'religion' too?

You may not give a crap, but to many of us keeping the planet in a decent, livable condition for ourselves and our kids is a worthwhile idea.

There truly is an element of religiousity in the Environmental movment. Modern technology is bad, chopping trees is bad, Any development for the benefit of mankind is bad. Rousseau's noble savage has morphed into a noble unspoilt (by man) nature.

Pure stinking BS Glenn. Technology is not bad. Chopping trees is not bad. What is bad is any development for mankind that is overdone, that royally screws the ecological balance and makes things way worse for future generations.

Have you every read Collapse by Jared Diamond? Read about the history of Easter Island sometime, how the local population chopped down all the trees and destroyed the island's ecology, wiping themselves out in the process. Do you think that can't happen at a larger scale, to humans now?

As to reality and my being in or out of touch with it. It would be better if you would use some non-egocentric standard.

I am. I'm just pointing out your extremest position and your attacks on those poor helpless strawmen.

I saw Oxmixmudd's comment. I too believe that we should care for the world other species etc. The problem with these debates is that any criticism of enviro-wackoness is automatically taken to mean that the critic wants to poison everything in sight, and kill of as many species as is practical as quickly as possible. I would note how quickly it was claimed that I am out of touch with reality to back up my assertion that criticism is dealt with as if insanity is the cause of the criticism. Such black-white ferver on this is another evidence that it is a religion not a science.

Glenn, you should step back and listen to yourself. You sound every bit as deranged and deluded as those who claim the theory of evolution is a religion. Go back and read what Crow wrote - she accurately described the 99% majority of the environmental movement, not the 1% you are railing against.

- T