Environmental rant

[Forrie]

Ahem bro could not of put it better myself

 

[Will]

WARNING: This is long rant. I don’t mean to offend anyone here; I just need to get this off my chest. (note: no one of this forum prompted me to write this. It is people around me on a daily bases.)

I am sick to death of armchair environmentalists bitching about me cutting down 1 tree in the middle of a forest, or complaining about cutting branches off trees, or sticking knives in trees to take pictures. These people need to grow up, think about what they are saying, and take a serious look at their lifestyles.



Below is from a post you responded to.......
Mentor
Basic Member Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 219

Looks like a fun trip. Thanks for sharing.

One question though: why stick all those knives into a living tree?




Are you sure nobody on here upset you????

Just an example that poped into my head, but harldy enough to really upset me.

 

[Mentor]

I hope not. It was a legitimate question. And the original poster gave a legitimate response. I attached no 'armchair environmentalist' commentary. If anyone read such a commentary into that question, It was not scripted by me.

 

[Redwolf]

greens, will, skunk, and most of the rest of the respondents.

Hearing someone else rant about these issues does my heart good.
Thank you gentleman for letting me know that I am not alone in the balanced philosophy that I not only ascribe to, but preach.

China and India will suffer the consequences of their population foolishness. It's just a matter of time. As far as dominating the US, that is not an eventuality, but a current reality.

I love my country, but I hate it's foolish course. We make almost nothing these days. We are a paper tiger. An army marches on its shoes, but we don't make any. Let's just hope that we don't go to war with the shoemakers.

This message was made in China/India/Indonesia/etc etc etc.

Rus

 

[hollowdweller]

There are probably a LOT more people who don't care, or discount the real environmental damage and wastefulness of our species than get upset over somebody sticking a knife in a tree.

The important thing is to not forget that humanity is seriously impacting our environment in a NON SUSTAINABLE way and that we should be thinking about future generations, and conservation.

True A FEW people are silly with their enviromentalisim, but lets not stereotype these people as chicken littles because there is a real problem

 

[SkunkWerX]

There are probably a LOT more people who don't care, or discount the real environmental damage and wastefulness of our species than get upset over somebody sticking a knife in a tree.

The important thing is to not forget that humanity is seriously impacting our environment in a NON SUSTAINABLE way and that we should be thinking about future generations, and conservation.

True A FEW people are silly with their enviromentalisim, but lets not stereotype these people as chicken littles because there is a real problem

The environmentalists "hearts" may be in the right place, but, I don't believe they can "see the Forest for the Knives Sticking in a Tree".

 

[stormshadow]

I think with most issues, ignorance is a big problem in the environmental movement. People see something simple like knives sticking in a tree and come out with an emotional response without actually doing the homework. In this case, as long as you don't girdle the tree (damage the bark in a complete circle around the diameter of the tree) it will be fine.

Also, damning the east's record on environmental policy is like the pot calling the kettle black. The US has more coal plants in various stages of production than anyone else in the world (save china), and Canada is considering restarting a program in nuclear energy generation. These are both horribly polluting methods to generate energy, regardless of what politicians may say.

The fact of the matter is, global warming is going to cause MAJOR changes to our atmosphere, and by extension the ecosystems we live in. It is highly unlikely that either the east of west will institute enough changes soon enough to change this reality.

 

[jmosh]

Hardly a rant, it is reality. Unfortunately almost everything in the U.S right now is geared towards people finding satisfaction in "consuming". The youngest kids are fully programmed through the media (and likely their families lifestyle) to support this (if you doubt it see what a kid does after watching WWF, yes it does program them). I am in marketing and product design for a living and if you want to live in line with natural law you will have to go against the current tide that the internet, tv, magazines, most religeoous and political leaders and the medical establishment promote as the way to feeling good about yourself. By design these things also are very effective at relieving you of your money as well as limiting your thought process.

The constant (intended) desire to find fullfillment from the next purchase drives most to overspend, be caught in their job and bills, become stressed and unhealthy and reliant upon antidepressants leading to further health problems and dependancy upon $$$ more medical treatment (which already is a huge economical burden and yet the drug companies rival the petrol companies for profits).

Why do we continue to support these corporations and their obscenely wealthy parasitic leaders? For the most part by the time you realize it you have already been immersed in it.

How do you get out of it?
Bit by bit, one small step at a time, by limiting purchases to what you need. Support the local economy, be responsible for your own well being.

A knife is a great tool and a symbol of self reliance. Its the claws we were not born with, and in a minimalist way, all a capable person needs to survive.

My rants over, I hope I did not offend anyone.

Peace.

 

[Mentor]

I think it's neat how many people are looking at my original post and assuming that my question about sticking knives in a tree was part of some drawn-out, 'emotional', and misplaced environmentalist rant. I'm really amazed that so much can be read into "one question though: why stick all those knives in a living tree?"

Sometimes a question is just a question. If I had wanted to jump into a rant or start moralizing, I would have done so.

Oh well, at least a reasonable discussion about the environment has ensued ...

 

[BlindedByTheLite]

WARNING: This is long rant. I don’t mean to offend anyone here; I just need to get this off my chest. (note: no one of this forum prompted me to write this. It is people around me on a daily bases.)

I grew up in nature and a have real passion and understanding for it. I love all plants and animals, and do my best to study them and be around them. It offends me when people who have much less understanding or appreciation for the nature cast judgment on me and the things I do.

I agree.


It amazes me, and sickens me how far removed from nature most city people are. We are a part of nature, and a part of our environment. Like all other creatures, we play a vital roll in our ecosystem. It needs us as much as we need it. As humans we have managed to separate ourselves from the natural world, and it seems many of us have forgotten that we are just another species sharing this great planet. All creatures interact with the environment, including us. But because of our society’s structure, we do not interact on an individual level like most other creatures; we have industries doing it for us.

I agree it's unfortunate how far from nature mankind has ended up. it's sad that the majority of mankind makes an effort to separate itself from nature. however, I don't think we play a vital role in the ecosystem. it doesn't need us as much as we need it. that's one of the silliest things I have heard this year. I only hope you didn't pay to learn that.

humans are responsible (directly and indirectly) for many (hundreds of extinctions documented, many more thousands likely) extant, endangered, Lazarus, and extinct species (including coextinctions) due to spreading species, habitat destruction, pollution, and irresponsible hunting/over-harvesting practices. this happens rapidly on a time line. it's simply not natural (selection). plants and animals are really disappearing, man. you have to remember, WE (guys and gals who hang out on the Survival section of BF), are a minority. most ppl don't value nature. do you see everyone else listening to our preaching any time soon? EO Wilson estimates that nearly 20% of living species could become extinct in less than 30 years if humans keep up their current pace. 50% of of species could be extinct in 100 years. some scientists estimate that 140,000 species become extinct yearly. most scientists believe we are currently in an on-going mass extinction that is only worsening @ the hands of mankind.

what do we really do for the ecosystem? why do you say it needs us?


Like all creatures, we make use of natural resources to survive. Even “synthetics” are all created from natural materials. Nothing is 100% purely man-made. Your house, clothes and food all come from nature, and involve a certain environmental impact. But the same is true of virtually ever creature. Beavers cut down trees and build dams that destroy entire ecosystems. Bears pull down trees to get at nests in the branches. Caterpillars eat leaves, and often kill entire trees by eating all the leave on the given tree. That is nature, and the difference with humans is that we take it to an extreme because there are too many of us on this planet.

that's not a fair way of looking @ things, in my opinion. I agree that the human population is far too large for the planet, but I think you're criss-crossing the line between "manmade" and "natural". I disagree with saying nothing is 100% manmade. starting out with natural materials doesn't make it @ all natural. it means it used to be natural.


Nature controls itself, and this sort of “destruction” is mandatory to maintain balance in nature. Extreme are bad, but moderation is not just acceptable, it is important to maintain this balance. Clear cutting forests destroy habitat and entire ecosystems, and commonly cause extinctions. This is not good. Cutting down one tree in forest destroys nothing. The tree is not dead, it is just pruned, and no habitat has been destroyed. All the surrounding trees provide the same habitat so long as they are left there. Taking dead wood from the ground has impact. Dead wood actually provided more habitat than living trees. Moss, fungi, all kinds of insect, rodents etc, live in dead and down wood. Dead wood also provides nutrients to the ground. Living trees consume nutrients and too many living trees in the forest are not good. But nature controls that with fires, lightening, diseases, and of course all the creatures (eg. humans, beavers, bears…) that exploit them for shelter and food. I do not hear people complaining about other animals. The issue with humans and trees is clear cutting entire forests. Not taking down one or two trees in a huge forest.

what kind of "destruction" are you talking about? live wood vs. dead wood is semantics. I've never heard of a forest having "too many living trees". who ever said cutting down a few trees is a problem? I agree, clear cutting can be a big problem, especially if it's not replaced, such as happens in rain forests and jungles. we have a place here in Maine called "the Desert of Maine"... think about it.

and you don't hear ppl complain about other animals? really? I find that hard to believe. especially if you're actively involved in the outdoors. just a hop skip and a jump away from here there are ppl complaining about wolves. you haven't had that conversation with anyone? see what I'm getting @?


I am sick to death of armchair environmentalists bitching about me cutting down 1 tree in the middle of a forest, or complaining about cutting branches off trees, or sticking knives in trees to take pictures. These people need to grow up, think about what they are saying, and take a serious look at their lifestyles.

it's respectful to try to use dead wood. if ppl were expressing that statement immaturely, then I can relate. if you're exaggerating a few ppl's opinions, then you might need to take a deep breath.


Do you drink coffee? Rainforests are completely wiped out in order to grow coffee, not to mention the garbage and pollution involved in bringing it to you.

do you have a link to the story of an entire rainforest being wiped out to grow coffee? humans have hit the rainforest very hard. it's getting smaller every year. not sure about the role coffee played in it tho. probly next to insignificant unless you lump them in with all "shifting cultivators". and do you know who is responsible for that? other humans. the ones who are in the majority. the ones who don't care. the ones who own 99% of the land. NOT US. the coffee drinker does not fuel rainforest destruction any more than gun manufacturers fuel funeral homes.

in the end, some area will likely be cleared, but I believe coffee plantations are incorporated into the rainforest, rather than replacing it. I assume you live in a house or apartment. chances are there used to be forest there. you make me sick.


Do you drink alcohol? Look the amount of energy, garbage and waste that come out of making and transporting booze.

are you using a computer? that's even worse!

I get your point, but this is horribly executed.


Do you buy bottled water, or soda etc.?

Do you keep you house cold to save energy and wear sweaters/hat indoors?

Do you pay extra close attention to your diet to make sure you only eat the absolute minimum requirements from each food group, to save plants and animals and energy?

Do you buy gear/clothes/other things that you don’t absolutely need for enjoyment?

look, you're bitter. we get it. but look @ who you're talking to here. a bunch of ppl who mostly agree with you. why not get out there a make a difference? educate. politic. you're ranting on an internet forum. what are you doing in your community? what are you doing nationally? internationally?


I can go on for ever with these questions trying to make the point that virtually everything we do can be criticized, and that I can criticize you just as easily as you can criticize me. Before you cast judgment on others take at look at yourself and your lifestyle. You are a consumer. I am sick of people who consume much more than they produce yet rant and bitch about others. These people are not tree huggers or environmentalists. They are just wannabes.

yes, we agree. you've taken this to the extreme tho. now, rather than change an "armchair environmentalist's" mind, you're going to spread your emotions to them and they will reflect it back @ you. what have you accomplished then?


A true minimum impact lifestyle would be living in the bush, off the grid and consume only what you can produce and hunt, thereby avoiding all the industry that brings you what you consume now.

that would have been a "minimum impact lifestyle" a long time ago. not anymore. like I said b4, we are the minority. hopefully the extent of the changes you're trying to make isn't limited to ranting on the internet.

 

[hollowdweller]

It's kind of like my friend who is a forester telling me that environmentalists should never use toilet paper because it comes from trees.

Most environmentalists I know, including myself know that we build houses out of wood, we eat deer etc.

What I have a problem with is like where I live up the hollow from me these loggers put in this crappy logging road and caused almost an acre of hillside to slide into the creek. I have a degree in Forestry and I know it is possible to harvest timber and build skid and logging roads in a manner that will not A)bankrupt the company or B) destroy the water quality.

I also have a problem with logging in National Forests when there is ample woodland available to log on private land. In general the taxpayer gets screwed because the timber is sold below market value and it negatively impacts the price private landowners can get for their timber.

As far as sticking knives in trees most trees can deal with that and I do it all the time. However creating any kind of a wound on a tree CAN potentially open it up to disease so while I'd have no problem doing it to a forest tree I would not do it to a very old tree or one in a city park because it's just not worth the risk.

 

[SkunkWerX]

I think it's neat how many people are looking at my original post and assuming that my question about sticking knives in a tree was part of some drawn-out, 'emotional', and misplaced environmentalist rant. I'm really amazed that so much can be read into "one question though: why stick all those knives in a living tree?"

Sometimes a question is just a question. If I had wanted to jump into a rant or start moralizing, I would have done so.

Oh well, at least a reasonable discussion about the environment has ensued ...

AND the answer to the question is.......drum roll.........
"So they could get a pictures of all their knives"

To further analyze the question, is it the amount of knives in question?
or the fact they are in a living tree?
We've seen single, two or three knives stuck in trees, live trees.
Is there an OK number of knives that can be stuck before the question is raised? Or is it the frivolity of it? What if someone is woodworking and sticks their knife in a tree so that it is easily accessible, is that more of a justification for "tree stabbing"?
Enquiring Minds want to know?

 

[Changling]

I deleted most of the post due to it's length so things may seem out of context.

I agree it's unfortunate how far from nature mankind has ended up. it's sad that the majority of mankind makes an effort to separate itself from nature. however, I don't think we play a vital role in the ecosystem. it doesn't need us as much as we need it. that's one of the silliest things I have heard this year. I only hope you didn't pay to learn that.

humans are responsible (directly and indirectly) for many (hundreds of extinctions documented, many more thousands likely) extant, endangered, Lazarus, and extinct species (including coextinctions) due to spreading species, habitat destruction, pollution, and irresponsible hunting/over-harvesting practices. this happens rapidly on a time line. it's simply not natural (selection). plants and animals are really disappearing, man. you have to remember, WE (guys and gals who hang out on the Survival section of BF), are a minority. most ppl don't value nature. do you see everyone else listening to our preaching any time soon? EO Wilson estimates that nearly 20% of living species could become extinct in less than 30 years if humans keep up their current pace. 50% of of species could be extinct in 100 years. some scientists estimate that 140,000 species become extinct yearly. most scientists believe we are currently in an on-going mass extinction that is only worsening @ the hands of mankind.

what do we really do for the ecosystem? why do you say it needs us?

What we do greatly affects the current environment. Suddenly eliminating the human factor would cause a catastrophic change (in terms of ecosystem trends) in the current environment. Would all current living species be able to adapt to that change? Maybe not.

You can say that the ecosystem doesn't need us, but does it really need anything? All species are interconnected, whether we see it or not, and all play an important role in it being the way it is.

Like all creatures, we make use of natural resources to survive. Even “synthetics” are all created from natural materials. Nothing is 100% purely man-made. Your house, clothes and food all come from nature, and involve a certain environmental impact. But the same is true of virtually ever creature. Beavers cut down trees and build dams that destroy entire ecosystems. Bears pull down trees to get at nests in the branches. Caterpillars eat leaves, and often kill entire trees by eating all the leave on the given tree. That is nature, and the difference with humans is that we take it to an extreme because there are too many of us on this planet.

that's not a fair way of looking @ things, in my opinion. I agree that the human population is far too large for the planet, but I think you're criss-crossing the line between "manmade" and "natural". I disagree with saying nothing is 100% manmade. starting out with natural materials doesn't make it @ all natural. it means it used to be natural.

I think you proved Will's point right there. You are seperating "man" from "nature". What makes "man" different from "nature"?

and you don't hear ppl complain about other animals? really? I find that hard to believe. especially if you're actively involved in the outdoors. just a hop skip and a jump away from here there are ppl complaining about wolves. you haven't had that conversation with anyone? see what I'm getting @?

He mentioned at the start of his rant that this was prompted by people around him. The people you are around in a day to day basis are not necessarily the same type of people that are around him. Lighten up a bit. Not everyone involved in the outdoors is involved in the hunting/ranching sense.

it's respectful to try to use dead wood. if ppl were expressing that statement immaturely, then I can relate. if you're exaggerating a few ppl's opinions, then you might need to take a deep breath.

I've heard those types of opinions too, and I can assure you, they are not an exaggeration. It being respectful to use dead wood instead of living wood is silly and unfounded, but then again, lots of people find silly things either respectful or insulting. Human nature I guess.

in the end, some area will likely be cleared, but I believe coffee plantations are incorporated into the rainforest, rather than replacing it.

The coffee plantations that are "incorporated into the rainforest", ie. shade grown coffee, remove all understory plants, drastically reducing species diversity. So they are still removing healthy forests, replacing them with only a fraction of what the forest used to be. But anyway, this is beside the point...

Do you drink alcohol? Look the amount of energy, garbage and waste that come out of making and transporting booze.

are you using a computer? that's even worse!

I get your point, but this is horribly executed.


Do you buy bottled water, or soda etc.?

Do you keep you house cold to save energy and wear sweaters/hat indoors?

Do you pay extra close attention to your diet to make sure you only eat the absolute minimum requirements from each food group, to save plants and animals and energy?

Do you buy gear/clothes/other things that you don’t absolutely need for enjoyment?

look, you're bitter. we get it. but look @ who you're talking to here. a bunch of ppl who mostly agree with you. why not get out there a make a difference? educate. politic. you're ranting on an internet forum. what are you doing in your community? what are you doing nationally? internationally?


I can go on for ever with these questions trying to make the point that virtually everything we do can be criticized, and that I can criticize you just as easily as you can criticize me. Before you cast judgment on others take at look at yourself and your lifestyle. You are a consumer. I am sick of people who consume much more than they produce yet rant and bitch about others. These people are not tree huggers or environmentalists. They are just wannabes.

yes, we agree. you've taken this to the extreme tho. now, rather than change an "armchair environmentalist's" mind, you're going to spread your emotions to them and they will reflect it back @ you. what have you accomplished then?


A true minimum impact lifestyle would be living in the bush, off the grid and consume only what you can produce and hunt, thereby avoiding all the industry that brings you what you consume now.

that would have been a "minimum impact lifestyle" a long time ago. not anymore. like I said b4, we are the minority. hopefully the extent of the changes you're trying to make isn't limited to ranting on the internet.

I think you missed the point of the rant. He isn't there to try to change the world. He's just fed up of being critized by people who are no better than he is. And sometimes it's good to let off some steam.

 

[beef]

I'm not attacking anyone with this post, just thought I'd state that right now.

Someone earlier in this thread said something along the lines of "until those countries start cleaning up their act, I shouldn't have to".
Yes, it would be great if countries did that, but until that happens, everyone can be responsible for their own actions environmentally. No, sticking 20 knives in a tree is nowhere near the scale of a country's yearly emissions or deforestation. But I can choose to do everything in MY power to ensure I have the least impact on the environment.

When I go out in the bush, I try leave it better than I find it, by packing out other people's garbage. By following LNT, I know that if nothing else, the bush is not worse off for my being there.
No, my actions won't help the planet on a massive scale. But I do what I can to make a difference (if only tiny). That's the most I can do.
End of my Greenie rant.

 

[stormshadow]

I totally agree with you beef... if everyone took that kind of personal responsibility, imagine the world we'd live in!

 

[Normark]

Hey GUys..

Will..

I Agree 110%..

ttyle

Eric
O/ST

 

[akennedy73]

Well, I don't have an environmental rant to share but I do have an environmental reflection that's been on my mind lately. In college I took a population biology course - one of the remarkable things you notice when studying population biology is that almost all animal species have a tendency to overshoot the carrying capacity of their environment and then collapse to a lower level.

It would be real easy to say that the animal populations which exceed the carrying capacity of their environment are just plain stupid and that's why they're not smart enough to adapt properly and either 1) increase the carrying capacity of their environment or 2) limit their populations so that they don't overshoot their carrying capacity in the first place.

But the thing is, I've hunted some of those same animals whose populations have overshot and collapsed time after time. And having hunted them, I know they're not stupid. They're highly adaptable and very responsive to their environment. For example, without enough resources they voluntarily limit their reproduction rates. So I think a different explanation has to be made for animals' tendency to overshoot and collapse.

The explanation is actually quite simple. The environment is a relatively large system and due to its size and complexity there tends to be a lag between cause and effect. In other words, as an animal population increases it begins to change something in the environment but that change takes time to work its way through the system. While it's working its way through, the animal population continues to increase. Once the change finally becomes noticeable, it's too late. Even though the animal is highly adaptable, its environment has changed so drastically it cannot cope and finds itself in an overpopulated state. Collapse occurs, the population dies off, and a new lower population level is achieved.

So it's not the lack of the animal's intelligence in adapting to its environment that is at fault. Its the fact that significant environmental feedbacks take so long to work through the system that by the time they do, it's too late.

Maybe you've noticed how warm it's been lately. Yesterday it felt like spring here where I live. It smelled like spring - at the end of November.

Now reflect on the fact that the warming you've noticed is due to carbon dioxide that's been released up until 30 years ago. All the carbon dioxide from 1976 to 2006 is still working it's way through the system and hasn't yet increased atmospheric temperatures or affected the weather. Global climate change has a 30-year lag in its feedback mechanisms. (This lag in the system is due to the oceans being such a large heat sink).

So we say we're an intelligent animal species that is highly adaptable. But can we adapt to something that is going to happen 30 years from now?

I think in the end we'll find we're no different than the rabbits, squirrels and deer. We're highly intelligent and adaptable - but we cannot adapt to what has not yet happened. Our population has probably overshot the carrying capacity given the amount of climate change that is working its way through the environmental system on a 30-year time-lagged basis. How severe the collapse and die-off will be is anyone's guess.

 

[BlindedByTheLite]

What we do greatly affects the current environment. Suddenly eliminating the human factor would cause a catastrophic change (in terms of ecosystem trends) in the current environment. Would all current living species be able to adapt to that change? Maybe not.

the only species that I can think of that would be effected would be species created by humans and species we already wiped out that nature conservists are ttrying to save in locked cages. they could be gone in the blink of an eye. survival for everything else would turn into a war of native species vs. introduced species. with either victory, cities would start to be overrun with plants within 10 years. birds would further spread the plant life. birds of prey and feral "ppl pets" would have a blast. many streets will collapse after metals corrode. eventually animals would move in after natural water sources returned. cockroaches would die out or close to it. rats would die out or close to it. many plant and animal species would begin to revert. large animals such as bears and wolves would move into cities in the north. buildings start crumbling within 50 years. forests would regrow. rain forests. jungles. probly within a couple hundred years, maybe less. carbon dioxide would be nearly gone within 200 years which would cool the atmosphere, and within 50 years after that the ozone would strengthen. most bridges would collapse within a few hundred years. the strongest within a thousand years. after some thousands of years nearly all buildings with few exceptions would leave almost no signs of their existence. even heavy metals and toxic substances would be flushed out. in any event, flooding and glaciers would probly move thru parts of the US again and grind up what's left eventually.

You can say that the ecosystem doesn't need us, but does it really need anything? All species are interconnected, whether we see it or not, and all play an important role in it being the way it is.

the world would go on without humans. quite healthily. if humans hadn't taken over there would be over twice as many 1000 lb animals in the Americas as there are in Africa today. bears twice the size of grizzlies. toxodons bigger than rhinos. sabre-toothed tigers. dozens of horse-like species. camel-like species. giant armadillos, beavers, peccaries, wooly rhinos, mammoths, and mastodons. just as today all of us on this forum agree that humans are now generally weaker individuals than back in the day, not able to survive like us on this forum and many others who take preparation seriously. and so have humans historically weakened other animals. I thought it was generally accepted that mass extinctions coincide with the proliferation of humans.

I think you proved Will's point right there. You are seperating "man" from "nature". What makes "man" different from "nature"?

oh, I dunno. cities and other civilizations? intellect? irrational behavior? McDonalds? space flight? tool steel? waterproof jackets? submarines? culture? taking over every continent not named Antarctica? etc. apparently you missed my point, actually. we, on the survival forum, are the minority. you're dreaming if you think otherwise. humans have separated themselves from nature, and continue to do so.

He mentioned at the start of his rant that this was prompted by people around him. The people you are around in a day to day basis are not necessarily the same type of people that are around him. Lighten up a bit. Not everyone involved in the outdoors is involved in the hunting/ranching sense.

I'm not going heavy on him. I'm allowed to disagree and add perspective, right? I'm not being rude. maybe I used the wrong tone of font.

I've heard those types of opinions too, and I can assure you, they are not an exaggeration. It being respectful to use dead wood instead of living wood is silly and unfounded, but then again, lots of people find silly things either respectful or insulting. Human nature I guess.

I'm rolling my eyes here. trees can't go to the pharmacy and buy antibiotics. silly and unfounded huh? AKA you don't personally care or agree. there is an in-between level here. there is no "stab a tree and it dies" and "stab a tree and nothing happens" debate. there is a chance it opens a tree for infection. just like a human. noone said it will definitely happen. tho you seem to be saying it definitely wont. which is wrong. c'mon man. I've seen it happen. I don't know how anyone who spends time in the woods could have not seen an infected tree.

The coffee plantations that are "incorporated into the rainforest", ie. shade grown coffee, remove all understory plants, drastically reducing species diversity. So they are still removing healthy forests, replacing them with only a fraction of what the forest used to be. But anyway, this is beside the point...

they do not remove quite "all" understory plants, tho I'm sure you didn't mean that literally. and the point you're missing, is it leaves the rainforest in tact. which in nearly every other industry, it would all be cut down. gone. completely. stripped bare. understory to canopy and everything else. coffee plantations are probly the worst example that could've been used. he went with it only 'cause he knew a lot of ppl drink coffee. not 'cause it was @ the top of the list for rainforest destruction. a tree didn't die for your kona. confession: I don't drink coffee.

I think you missed the point of the rant. He isn't there to try to change the world. He's just fed up of being critized by people who are no better than he is. And sometimes it's good to let off some steam.

I got the point of the rant. I simply disagree with it. this is like me getting so fed up with my constantly drunk and drugged up partying neighbors that I start throwing parties and drinking 30 cubes and smoking weed and snorting cocaine to deal with it. and you're invited!

making a change starting in your community and beyond is far more effective than a quick fix of venting. yeesh. should I apologize for disagreeing and choosing not to lie? maybe I should've just pumped my fist and told him to start a blog.

yeesh. no need for the "with us or against us" attitude. I'm being friendly. really!

 

[Codger_64]

cockroaches would die out or close to it. rats would die out or close to it. Lol! Hardly! La cucarachas will be here long after mankind is a forgotten memory. Same for rats.

carbon dioxide would be nearly gone within 200 years which would cool the atmosphere, and within 50 years after that the ozone would strengthen. Now, this is wierd science. Man is the only maker of carbon dioxide? CD is the only reason the atmosphere is warming? Man makes ozone too. Most electrical motors ooze ozone.

if humans hadn't taken over there would be over twice as many 1000 lb animals in the Americas as there are in Africa today. bears twice the size of grizzlies. toxodons bigger than rhinos. sabre-toothed tigers. dozens of horse-like species. camel-like species. giant armadillos, beavers, peccaries, wooly rhinos, mammoths, and mastodons. Most of these predated mankind on this continent by a long shot, and man had nothing to do with their extinction.

Valid arguements are often invalidated by the inclusion of junk science. Real science records seem to indicate that we are in the midst of a naturally occuring change cycle. That is not to say that we should not, as individuals and nations, live in an ecologically responsible way. It is just that the proponents of "man is a blight on the earth" drive limos and Hummers to their conferences, consume much more than their "share" of earth's resources, and expound whatever scientific theory is currently in vogue as fact. I have a real hard time giving their views any credence.

Codger

 

[BlindedByTheLite]

cockroaches would die out or close to it. rats would die out or close to it. Lol! Hardly! La cucarachas will be here long after mankind is a forgotten memory. Same for rats.

I was speaking from my neck of the woods on that one. sorry I wasn't clear. most of what I was saying in the beginning concerns the northeast US. after that and to a lesser extent the Americas. the period of time covered in my post was getting quite extended, and @ that point it's difficult to go anywhere with it.

carbon dioxide would be nearly gone within 200 years which would cool the atmosphere, and within 50 years after that the ozone would strengthen. Now, this is wierd science. Man is the only maker of carbon dioxide? CD is the only reason the atmosphere is warming? Man makes ozone too. Most electrical motors ooze ozone.

industrial carbon dioxide*, and I don't have the time or patience for that debate. some of it is natural. some of it isn't. I am interested in knowing why you personally think temperatures are rising right, however.

if humans hadn't taken over there would be over twice as many 1000 lb animals in the Americas as there are in Africa today. bears twice the size of grizzlies. toxodons bigger than rhinos. sabre-toothed tigers. dozens of horse-like species. camel-like species. giant armadillos, beavers, peccaries, wooly rhinos, mammoths, and mastodons. Most of these predated mankind on this continent by a long shot, and man had nothing to do with their extinction.

which of them predated mankind on this continent? are they not from the pleistocene? why do you say mankind had nothing to do with their extinction? are their disappearance and mankind's evolution purely coincidence?

Valid arguements are often invalidated by the inclusion of junk science. Real science records seem to indicate that we are in the midst of a naturally occuring change cycle. That is not to say that we should not, as individuals and nations, live in an ecologically responsible way. It is just that the proponents of "man is a blight on the earth" drive limos and Hummers to their conferences, consume much more than their "share" of earth's resources, and expound whatever scientific theory is currently in vogue as fact. I have a real hard time giving their views any credence.

Codger

I agree with being ecologically responsible. but... "junk science"? isn't that a "vogue" political buzz word? famous for debunking the myth of global warming and second-hand smoke, right? :foot: "naturally occurring change cycle"? do you mean natural variation? humans don't consume more than their share?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I wont say you're wrong as long as you don't say I'm wrong. 'cause in the end, we're both wrong/right. there's evidence for and against that only the passing of time will clear up for certain.