@ihavestage4coolness Ah, so you are saying that although it won't really hurt the Earth in our current environment, it is good training for when people decide to pursue life expansion into more delicate and unstable ecosystems which we are not naturally involved in. I can see how you would make that argument, it's valid. My only reservation to that would be that even in the age where we can live underwater, the majority of people won't and will choose our original habitat as to the extremes.
@ihavestage4coolness What I'm saying is no it hasn't, Climate change has been around way before man, and will be going on until the world is no more. How is pursuing a scientific reason discrediting intelligence; there is no intelligence in the global warming theory. I will admit that many massive companies and governments don't care about what actually does harm environment around them, but nature will always come back, if it can recover from an H-bomb in 50 years, CO2 isn't going to do it wors
I agree AND Disagree with George. If we, humans, were not so out of wack with where we really fit into the world then a mention of an environmental issue would automatically be seen as an economic, social, cultural, potical, etc. issue. As it inherently is. But our collective delusion that we, and all of the systems we create(d), are not affected by the environment makes it a lost cause to drum up any support if presented as an isolated system (which it never was)
Yes, one must usually appeal to selfish anthropocentric motives to get action out of the dumb masses.
There is also irony in this speaker's name. See the "George C. Marshall Institute" (a denial think-tank)
Antithropocentric 3 weeks ago
@ihavestage4coolness I guess we just disagree on the Earth's stability. Which is fine, I suppose we can always agree to disagree.
ssjL3g3nd 1 year ago
@ihavestage4coolness Ah, so you are saying that although it won't really hurt the Earth in our current environment, it is good training for when people decide to pursue life expansion into more delicate and unstable ecosystems which we are not naturally involved in. I can see how you would make that argument, it's valid. My only reservation to that would be that even in the age where we can live underwater, the majority of people won't and will choose our original habitat as to the extremes.
ssjL3g3nd 1 year ago
@ihavestage4coolness What I'm saying is no it hasn't, Climate change has been around way before man, and will be going on until the world is no more. How is pursuing a scientific reason discrediting intelligence; there is no intelligence in the global warming theory. I will admit that many massive companies and governments don't care about what actually does harm environment around them, but nature will always come back, if it can recover from an H-bomb in 50 years, CO2 isn't going to do it wors
ssjL3g3nd 1 year ago
Comment removed
ssjL3g3nd 1 year ago
@ihavestage4coolness you that stupid to think there is global warming by man? come to compton, ill put you in the ground if you love in so much
ssjL3g3nd 1 year ago
LOL LMFAOWTF
cabaretampere 2 years ago
I agree AND Disagree with George. If we, humans, were not so out of wack with where we really fit into the world then a mention of an environmental issue would automatically be seen as an economic, social, cultural, potical, etc. issue. As it inherently is. But our collective delusion that we, and all of the systems we create(d), are not affected by the environment makes it a lost cause to drum up any support if presented as an isolated system (which it never was)
inglefud 3 years ago
exactly
tdavies456 2 years ago
This is excellent. It's fantastic to see this view expressed without resorting to the loaded "holistic" word.
MPidge 3 years ago
EXCELLENT POINT.
CityzenJane 3 years ago 3