Quote:
Originally Posted by shovel
This is an enormously unpopular thing to say, I know, but that doesn't make it any less realistic:
If we all are to decide that man's contributions to the planet are inherently bad - the stuff we put in landfills, the stuff we put in the air by driving around and manufacturing things, the trees we cut down to make room for raising livestock, the rubbish we dump in rivers, all the stuff we're asked to feel guilty about on a daily basis..
If we decide in quantity all the stuff humans do is at some level bad, then the obvious solution is fewer humans.
Until we're mature enough as a society to accept that, any other gestures toward "going green" is going to be like shoveling sand against the tide with a teaspoon.
What does that have to do with this thread? I'm just saying the topic of this discussion is nothing to be concerned about one way or another. It's like deciding whether or not the emblems on the side of your Hummer are contributing to its aero drag.
|
Ed Zachary.
The more clever humans are in evading- or I should say, postponing- crises of resources and/or pollution, the more it seems to encourage extravagant reproduction. Then someday the isht will really hit the fan but until then we can be fat dumb and happy as long as we can continue tossing about as much genetic seed as possible.
