[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As freebeard pointed out, there is no consensus here at all. The question lacks specificity, also. Kinda like asking why people believe that eating, especially meat, isn't a health problem. Everything is assumed not to be a problem unless a specific problem is alleged.


My biggest complaint (and I'm not accusing you of this) is the deliberately imprecise and divisive use of "The Environment"; as if there is only 1, and it somehow magically encompasses flourishing for every imaginable creature and plant.


For example, "The environment" for various extremophiles is absolutely inhospitable for most other creatures. "The environment" for mosquitos in my house is inhospitable because I don't leave stagnant water for reproduction, or easy ingress/egress. It's a fantastic environment for me, though.

"The Environment" is a fictitious concept used as a religious construct by anti-humanists to fool people into believing any impact to Gaia's pristine nature is sinful. Somehow humanity is the only creature not part of Gaia's perfect creation.

That isn't an argument against preserving or improving various environments for various other species (environmentalism), only that I reject Environmentalism as a religion. I'm a humanist, and that means placing the highest value on human environments for the short, medium, and long term.

It seems that the contrarians are the religious ones.