Why should an intelligent person laugh at environmentalists

Here is why:

It is absolutely asinine and profoundly arrogant to claim humans should shoulder any responsibility or make any effort in 'saving' the earth as well as the environment. Humans has only existed for less than 0.0056% of the history of the earth, the industrial revolution is even younger.

And yet there are a group of idiotic, moronic, imbecilic, uber-clueless homosapien-chauvinistic first class A-hoes believe humans are so magnificent, so outstanding, so remarkable, so brilliant and so majestic, that they should save the planet they does not yet know anything about.

I hate to crush you greenies' little wet dream, really, you are kind-hearted and decent people, but good wills are the premium quality fuel for the rocket of stupidity. Have you ever heard, even in sweden and norway, a subject in their universities called "environmentalism"? No, you haven't, because there is none. To seal the deal, environmentalism in the eyes of geologists is the same as creationism in the eyes of biologists. Geologists that support environmentalist crackpottery are as scarce as biologists that embraces creationism.

You know the PCB board in your computer(s) probably contains lead and other toxic material, you yuppy little pea brains wanna feel good and rid yourselves of the guilt for using it — the feeling you have absolutely no proof and evidence for.

The environmentalism has been, and always will be a massive crowd of undereducated and clueless people led by demagogues that couldn't care any less about earth and humanity and couldn't care more about destroying free-trade, free-market and in general, any voluntary behavior initiated by consenting individuals so they could push forward their farleft, perverted egalitarian agenda.

For you para-PETA Sturmabteilungs, get this: 99.9% of animal species are extinct... way before apes had even come about. It's called evolution, and that's how mother earth devised all the living mechanisms. Don't like it? Go file a complaint on her to Ingrid E. Newkirk.

Here is yet another puzzling and disturbing question for you single-neuron-celled greenies to be scared of: how do you know your policies would not cause more damage to the environment? Ban computer, clearly the manufacturing of PCBs would be significantly reduced, but the use of abacus and paper would shoot right up, ban SUV, people would drive twice or even thrice to carry what SUV can do for only once.

Or shall we ban cars and modern civilization all together, return to the era where people have to sleep in caves and fight predators with torches?

Sounds insane? That's what some radical greenies actually believe, as the creator of ALF once said, and I paraphrase, in the eco-system, only humans are dispensable.

 

If I understand what you're saying, it's that any amount of pollution is okay?

 

Yes, as long as it does not harm another human being.

 

what do you suggest for when the earth becomes unlivable for humans should we just use our spare one ? oh wait a minute thats right we dont have one do we

 

Does that include giving them cancer, changing their weather, that sort of thing?

 

So you're saying you're in favor of expediting the extinction of humans and most other large mammals?

Sorry. that's where "conservatism" crosses the border into form Stupidonia into Crazyopolis.

 

Well that's the point. Polution does harm human beings.

I lived in Chengdu in China for three months. There were days when one could hardly see across a major road,, the smog would make my eyes itch and whatever sh!t I was sucking into my lungs. In three months there, there were only a dozen days where I could see blue sky.

But then again, your views are typical of rightwingers and industrialists. Strip the planet of all resourses, make as much money as quickly as you can, leave a trail of polution and ruin the planet for future generations.

 

So I can't murder a 100 year old because I'm too young compared to his/her age?

 

The problem is that environmentalism has ceased to advocate the "easy" things to do like recycling, turning off the lights, etc and gone from advocating for voluntary lifestyle changes, to using coercive means to force lifestyle changes upon those who do not wish them.

Environmentalism isn't about industrial pollution anymore, it is about controlling the masses and forcing them into an environmentalist lifestyle they despise.

 

lol, name some...

 

Are the people currently swimming about in underwater England laughing at the concept of saving the world?

Personally, I'd rather try than die. Or die trying. Better to die for something than of something etc....

 

I don't think it's about over intrusive environmentalism. It's more about credibility. The environmentalist agenda lost credibility and you can't expect people to change lifestyle for something perceived as inaccurate.

...if the environmentalists are right, would you let lazy, ignorant people destroy your world and everything you need to survive?

 

Next time a river gets polluted in your area I'm sure you'll welcome it. Why the hell do you think bodies like the EPA exist? Because of them you have clean water to drink, wash in and play around in. Or should we simply ban all environmental lobby groups and government institutions, and instead rely on 'personal responsibility' to keep our countries clean and safe?

Should we allow imported top predators like, for example, the Mink (farmed for fur), to be released in Britain to breed and prey on our indigenous species?

 

That's the most absurd thing ever read. Ah, and that is not intelligent it's absolutely the opposite.

Every intelligent person should worry about environment, and the pollution harms the humans. The things are worsening, and a great part of the impatc is of human. Yes, there should be a drastic reduction of pollution, like gas... and also consumption of some products like petroleum.

 

Oh, and in case it slipped your memory the ban on CFCs in connection with the damaged and potentially disastrous effects of the hole in our ozone layer, had a positive result. See, that's what happens when you employ people with more IQ than your amoebic theories.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

 

Intelligent people wouldn't confuse 'environmentalism' with religion...

Just saying.

 

So you're arguments are;
-1.people couldn't of had an affect they haven't been around long enough.
-2.environmentalism isn't a science.
-3.geologists disagree.
-4.environmentalists are hypocrites.
-5.the solutions would cause more damage.
oh and 6.Environmentalism is a left totalitarian conspiracy.

Thanks for not providing evidence.
1.There is much information to the contrary paleoclimatology finds small affects in the past like some caused by solar activity or changes in the earth's orbit become amplified even further by an increase or decrease in humidity and less or more ice causing further affects. The climate isn't all that self sustaining it's provoked by small changes. Considering what we've done it's reasonable to think we would have an affect on the climate. If you want further information we have a climate sub board here where people there have spent more time studying it then me there.

2.It isn't so why are you talking about it like it is.

3.No the majority of them seem to believe it's happening the closest area we see where there is a divergence is economic geologists. Where in I think 2008 a study revealed only 47% of them thought it was happening. Meanwhile groups like the European Federation of Geologists, Geological Society of America, and The Geological Society of London seem to agree.

4.Being green is a little more complicated then avoiding all toxic materials and reducing you're emissions to zero. You're asking the wrong people to be unrealistic.

5.I would like to see some evidence of serious and influential people pushing for those kinds of solutions. The usual solutions seem to be increasing efficiency and upgrading older technologies.

6.I would really like to see some evidence of serious and influential people pushing for this because this statement is so surreal it sounds like a parody of right wing views.

 

There are probably no universities in the United States which categorize academic disciplines pertaining to the environment as 'environmentalism'. That is the term for a philosophy, and ideology, and social movement. In academia, we refer to the subjects pertaining to the environment as environmental science, which is an interdisciplinary field of study.

 

I think your very existence will cause a massive famine in Africa — something I have absolutely no proof for. What do you suggest when a famine in Africa actually happens?

Catching my drift?

 

Of course! But before you ask me any further question, please answer this one:do you wanna kill all the blue smurfs? And how do you plan to PROVE you DO NOT want to kill them all?

 

No, I'm in favor of you stop taking the dummy pills, something I have more proof for than your claim — since you appear to be genuinely stupid. Disagree? The human population is steadily increasing as science is progressing and free-market is spreading. How do you plan to drive something into extinction by populate them even more?

 

Were we stupid to ban CFCs?

 

Here, have a Nobel Prize for that discovery!

You fit in the anti-progress (ironically you lot are called progressives), anti-science and anti-intellect buffoons. Let's stop using any technologies, and return to the era of horse-riding and torch-burning. Science, pufff, it's just the delusion of some maniac that tries to improve the well-being of man kind!

 

No you can't. But you can make meaningless and sapient comments on public forums.