Ford finally gets it

[MeteorGray]

I believe the plan is to kill off all the "breathing, burping and farting" humans. We are the only entities causing great threat to the environment, if you don't count volcanoes and meteorites and solar flares and ....

[redpoint5]

There's no such thing as The Environment. There's environments that bears live in, fish, viruses, humans, bacteria, etc. That's why I specify that I'm a human environmentalist; to distinguish myself from anti-human environmentalists. Those in the anti-human environmental religion see humanity exiting the cave and modifying nature to build better shelter as original sin. Anything non-human that happens is "sacred", and anything humans do to modify nature is "sacrilege".

[freebeard]

"We are the only entities causing defining 'great threat to the environment'."

[aerohead]

* The tree offers shade even to the axman who destroys it.
* Until the rightless thing receives its right, we cannot see it as anything but a thing for the use of us.
* Things have no voice.
* Until things are given rights, not even attorneys may speak for them.
* Who does the space weather-huggers really hug, when they hug space weather ?
* Humans cannot eat sunshine, nor make air.
* Humans are not an apex species.

[redpoint5]

Some humans are not part of the apex species

Plants can't make CO2, and they enjoy the nourishment from animal excrement, so it seems to be a pretty good deal for both.

It's non-sequitur to imply that morality isn't rooted in truth, but instead a fiction contrived by humans, and then to moralize about the rights of trees. This is at the very heart of the problem exposed by Nietzsche. We're all yelling into the abyss pointlessly if morality is defined at the individual level and has no connection with truth. Why struggle then if it's pointless, rather than sit back and enjoy the ride?

[freebeard]

* Humans cannot eat sunshine, nor make air.

I can. I turn it into Vitamin D.

* The tree offers shade even to the axman who destroys it.

I like that one. :thumbup"

[Isaac Zachary]

I don't get any of this philisophical, whatever it is. The only philosophy that makes sense to me is that I need the planet beneath my feet in order to survive. If there's no planet, there's no me.

It seems like some people believe that humankind can do no damage, as if there's nothing we can do that could harm our own existence. I don't see anything wrong with questioning whether we've taken things a bit too far. Humans have lived for thousands or perhaps millions of years without technology. Never before in the history of humankind have we burned thousands of tons of stuff that was locked away under the Earth's crust on a daily basis. What's wrong with stopping for a second and questioning if this could be a bad thing instead of assuming that joyriding about in masive one, two and three ton vehicles is perfectly normal and safe?

Technology has helped improve a lot of things but seems to have destroyed others. Try having a normal conversation with a teenager and you'll see what I mean.

[aerohead]

* Some will argue cultural relativism.
* It's perfectly moral to toss babies into an active caldera, when 'truth' informs you that it will appease the gods of magma, and end village destruction.
* 'Truth' of the mob can be tyranny to an individual.
* Ford has now changed its 'truth', from 'pistons' to 'rotors'.
* Abracadabra!
* 'Any way the wind blows'.
* The libertarian, middle class, Chinese wild meat market may have spawned the COVID-19 pandemic. But hey, they were just enjoying the ride.
* Americans enjoyed shooting passenger pigeons so much, we no longer have any. Just enjoying the ride.
* Demands of conservation have collided with the needs of monetized aspiration, consumer capitalism, and debt service.
* Even with incentives, there is no guarantee that people will make the best long-term decisions.
* What becomes of those who come to independent moral decisions that run counter to tribal beliefs?
* 'Men hate what they fear.' ( CREATION OF THE HUMANOIDS , 1962 )
* Humans may lose by winning.

[redpoint5]

No worries, the "green religion" is non-sequitur, so there's nothing to get, which is what I'm exposing. If it can be hammered into something useful and robust, then I'll leave it be.

If only the worst thing I've done to people was imperceptibly increase the outdoor thermostat, I'd make Mother Teresa look like a marauding sociopath by comparison. Unfortunately humans intentionally harming humans is the biggest cause of unnecessary suffering in the world, and I've played my part.

The error in thinking, and the difference between "believers"/"deniers" and reasonable people is binary logic. Those who believe humans can "do no damage" are as wrong as those who believe they do existential damage.

You've correctly pointed out that technology is a double-edged sword, solving immediate problems and creating longer term ones. It's anyone's guess on if technology will be our demise (engineered virus for example), or our salvation (steering an asteroid away from collision for example). It doesn't matter though, because humanity doesn't have an interest in living primitively (though some individuals do). Once an easier or more comfortable way is developed, we don't go back.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

* The libertarian, middle class, Chinese wild meat market may have spawned the COVID-19 pandemic. But hey, they were just enjoying the ride.

How can a libertarian middle class persist under possibly the most authoritarian government, after Australia?

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

i don't get any of this philisophical, whatever it is. The only philosophy that makes sense to me is that I need the planet beneath my feet in order to survive. If there's no planet, there's no me.

Survival is a pretty low bar.