"All I ask is, if you have nothing to contribute, at least stay out of our way, we have a lot of work to do."

Oh, look at you. You're not riding a high horse, you're on a fucking unicorn. You're so much better than all of us, Thucy. Bow down, petty mortals. We're in the presence of an eternal hero.

"But how about your obligation to your neighbors?"

What obligation? Did I sign something? As I said, I can survive on my own. It's nice and cozy to have a house with air conditioning and a steak dinner every so often, but if that all goes away, I'll be fine.

"We owe it to the sandhill cranes, the tuna and the cypresses, as well as the Joneses at the end of the block, to at least do them the dignity of getting up out of the chair and walking toward the ship's steering wheel to try to avert a catastrophe."

I'm not going to do nature's job and select the things that will survive and the things that won't. If a global climate or other type of catastrophe is on the horizon, that's out of my hands.

"The way to do this and ensure our survival though is not to just drive off the cliff. That could very well spell our total extinction."

Unlikely. It's not as if there isn't adequate warning.

"Often I will say things like "we either do it ourselves or nature does it for us" but that is oversimplified."

Why shouldn't it be simple? Life is simple. Existence is simple.

"The greed and selfishness you are talking about are not "humanity's" fault, they are the fault of a social system that has put some people with some fucked up ideas about right and wrong into some very powerful positions"

The fuck is this? You can't pin the blame on wealth, power, and political capital for something catastrophic that we all participated in. You're fucking nuts.

"I'm glad you're comfortable being a misanthrope, but for those of us who still have the ability to love, like I said, I'll ask that you get out of our way."

You sound like someone from some kind of suicide cult. Go on, Thucy. Extend your arms to the aliens who are going to bring you to the next level of your salvation. The pathetic human race does not know what they are missing.

"Like, why are you even studying environmental science if you don't even plan to do anything about it?"

Finally, a real question. I am studying environmental science because I care about nature and love it to death. If an opportunity to work in conservation enforcement presents itself, that's where you'll find me.

Dang, when you talk to crazy, you start talking crazy. I need a break.

@Thucydides If the hillsides of Wales were left then they would be overrun by the Rhododendons and Rabbits both invasive species. Or are your suggesting that sheep are left to to go feral and we do away with the wool industry as well as dairy.

the dairy industry is just capitalism raping creatures they deem to be inferior.

Hmmm.. I don't think they rape them. Although they do inseminate them. Possibly a good argument. I don't know.

Oct you really think vegans haven't raised awareness about cruelty to nice? Pretty sure they're the only ones complaining about vivisection and animal testing. I love how people who couldn't care less about animal welfare attack vegans for supposedly not caring enough. Typical meat eater bs.

Yes it is rape. Cows are restrained by force to insert a metal object in their rectum and vagina. By any definition that is rape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8

@ bo

" cows, slaughterhouses, and big rigs produce more methane than no cows, no slaughterhouses, and no big rigs, so I think the answer is pretty clear"

Well, no it isn't. You've not answered it at all, just skirted round the issue and given a vague notion that bovine methane is a larger issue. If you are going to make environmental calculations it is imperative that you are aware of and can make a decent stab at quantifying all factors. If it turns out that human methane emissions from vegetarian diets have an insignificant increase I am perfectly happy to ignore it, but until I see evidence to show it I am not.

The evidence I have seen recently, for example, shows carbon equivalent emissions per calorie of beef and lamb products to be in the region of 3 times that of fruit. Pork and poultry, by contrast, are actually below fruit by a small amount. Vegetables like broccoli are particularly good for you but astonishingly bad from an emissions point of view. Rice by contrast is rather good, but has other issues such as water usage.

The best way to make a real difference is to simply waste less food. When shopping the average shopping instinctively reaches for the best and the freshest. If instead you reach for what would otherwise be wasted your personal impact on the environment will be minimal.

If you are making apple pie or apple sauce, buy the bruised apples. If you intend on eating it tonight, buy the food at the end of its shelf life so it isn't thrown away. Buy the oddly shaped veg whenever you can so that supermarkets know there's a market for them and will be less inclined to order farmers to plough them back into their fields.

That will have a greater environmental benefit than any other change you can make.

Wow... Putin trivializing rape. Never thought I'd see that. It's really quite saddening.

In no sense have I trivialized rape. If you're trying to wind me up for jokes again you've failed.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/

You've defined animal husbandry as rape, Putin. That is trivializing in the extreme. It is not a joke. It is revolting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

The 'shame' here is you wanting to give barbaric practices which forcibly impregnate cows the euphemism of "animal husbandry" because it allows to ignore the cruelty involved. They even call the device they shove into a cow's vagina the "rape rack". The fact that you care so little about the rights of animals that you think comparing vile attacks against them to attacks against humans is "shameful" says more about you than it does me.

@Oct: a lot of people confuse the current day ease of life with being moral superiority.

I'm woth Putin on this one, rape is rape. Unlawful killing is murder.

If you believe that killing an animal is murder despite the law having nothig to say about it, you equally believe that forced insemination is rape.

Not trivialising rape at all. Your position is putting human above all other creatures and is entirely antropocentric.

There are times when you realise that the people on the other side of the argument are so far removed from reality that further discussion is utterly pointless. The rape is rape argument does not apply when you include the entire bloody animal kingdom in it. You're got a bloody screw loose, both of you.

Hey bosox:

Don't be an ass. I'm not a leader of anything, above anyone, or anything of the kind. I'm a foot soldier, a follower, a supporter, shoulder to shoulder with everyone else struggling on this planet, and that's where it ends. I'll die that way. I believe to the last breath that I am not in any sense superior to any living thing, and it is because of that that I make the statements I make. I'm sorry that you're such an egocentric cynic, you may one day change. There is always time for that, no matter how late the hour may be.

"I'm not going to do nature's job and select the things that will survive and the things that won't. If a global climate or other type of catastrophe is on the horizon, that's out of my hands."

Nothing is in your hands, and everything is. This is a monstrous cop-out. By choosing to do nothing you are doing the very selection you mock. You have a consciousness, you can't just weasel your way out of the responsibility that entails. If you wish to see the mass extinction proceed, then don't hide behind platitudes. Out with it. Tell us that, and tell us why, and then tell us why it is right, or to hell with you.

"The fuck is this? You can't pin the blame on wealth, power, and political capital for something catastrophic that we all participated in. You're fucking nuts."

I see that they don't teach much about society in the environmental science program. Social systems, dude. Yes we all participate in them. But they are unjust and should be overturned. You severely misread me, apparently because you don't understand how systems work - they're bigger than individuals. Think culturally, not individualistically - individualism is after all a cultural construct.

"You sound like someone from some kind of suicide cult. Go on, Thucy. Extend your arms to the aliens who are going to bring you to the next level of your salvation. The pathetic human race does not know what they are missing."

This is just sad. I sound like I'm in a suicide cult... why? Because I used the word "love"? Fuck me, I guess. I'm curious what you imagine the point of life is. If it is not to love, and fight for what we love, then what is it? Your apparent nihilism marks you out as closer to a suicide cult than me.

"I am studying environmental science because I care about nature and love it to death."

You sound like you're in a suicide cult.... see, I can do it too.

If you care about nature, then why do you apparently see no need to do anything about the mass extinction of modern times? Why would you work in conservation given your statements that you don't want to "meddle" with nature? I can't figure you out here, your motivation is rife with contradiction. What do you believe, what do you care about? What is the purpose of life, how should we live and why?

Someone who doesn't know anything about the destruction of the environment because of ignorance and propaganda, they can be easily forgiven for going along wholeheartedly with the destruction. But someone like you, who knows the stakes... what excuse do you have?

You talk of suicide cults, just minutes after you openly professed to be fine with passively watching the human race self-destruct. What's going on with you?

"There are times when you realise that the people on the other side of the argument are so far removed from reality that further discussion is utterly pointless. The rape is rape argument does not apply when you include the entire bloody animal kingdom in it. You're got a bloody screw loose, both of you."

It's amazing how the right wing is so comfortable with just calling defenders of nature "crazy" without engaging at all with the underlying philosophy. Octavious and bo_sox are both doing it. It just makes you look bad, you're either being disingenuous and pretending not to understand the underlying philosophy, or you're being atrociously close-minded and truly unable to understand due to prejudice, or you're just stupid. Not a lot of great options for you there.

@TooCoolSunday

https://www.ted.com/talks/george_monbiot_for_more_wonder_rewild_the_world?language=en

Yeah, that's fair enough if you are considering what are currently natural parks. But how far back do you want to take this. Do you seriously consider it to be worthwhile or practical suggestion to re-wild areas that have been inhabited, managed and transformed by a good few thousand years of human habitation.

@TCS

Sorry, that was the wrong link. Take a look at this:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/may/22/britain-uplands-farming-subsidies

But yes I do consider a serious and worthwhile suggestion. Beyond that, I consider it a necessity for our continued survival. We depend on healthy ecosystems.

"There are times when you realise that the people on the other side of the argument are so far removed from reality that further discussion is utterly pointless. The rape is rape argument does not apply when you include the entire bloody animal kingdom in it. You're got a bloody screw loose, both of you."

Not including the 'entire bloody animal kingdom', though. I'm including animals who are forcibly inseminated with a metal object while a human being literally holds the uterus in place with their arm through the rectum. By any standard that is rape. If that happened to a dog nobody would question it being called rape.


As for you now declaring that you have no need for discussion with the "other side of the argument", I would be heartbroken if it weren't for the fact that you rarely bother to discuss anything anyway. It's usually you doing some form of trying to point and laugh at somebody in an obvious attempt at grandstanding. When that gets boring, it's back to just-so stories and ex-cathedra pronouncements that don't even have a whiff of evidence supporting them.

" It's amazing how the right wing is so comfortable with just calling defenders of nature "crazy" without engaging at all with the underlying philosophy. Octavious and bo_sox are both doing it. It just makes you look bad, you're either being disingenuous and pretending not to understand the underlying philosophy, or you're being atrociously close-minded and truly unable to understand due to prejudice, or you're just stupid. Not a lot of great options for you there."

Bo's a right winger now? Wow... May I be the first to welcome him into the ranks of the good guys.

You're underlying philosophy is clear, Thucy. You've given up because it's too hard. You've taken to throwing your weight behind idealistic unworkable crap because at the end of the day that's easy. You get to play tragic hero whilst jetting off to all parts of the world and generally having a great time. Who gives a damn if it works? Who gives a damn if it makes not one iota of difference?

Fine. Enjoy yourself. Harvest some oranges, jet off to wherever you want to observe farming practices in the sunshine, start a local tofu and Thoreau club. Whatever. Just don't get in the way of the people working to achieve real and achievable change.

Man, I missed this...

Woah! Not wanting to be associated with sandal wearing tree huggers is not the prerogative of the right. Stop trying to insult anyone that fancies a bacon sandwich now and then by calling them a fascist.

Okay, we're getting somewhere. You've committed to the idea that you're not being disingenuous and are willing to discuss the idea.

Let's get to it then. Why do you believe what I'm talking about is "idealistic, unworkable crap"? I will fully agree that it's an uphill climb, but I have I believe demonstrated before, but will do so again, that there isn't really a choice. The problems we are facing require solutions. The solutions that are on offer are not easy to implement, but the alternative is to face the consequences of the continued status quo.

This is what I don't think you're getting, or would like to pretend you don't get. I didn't arrive at my "idealistic" conclusions because I love looking at myself in the mirror and reading my speeches or someshit. It happened because I started to get worried about climate change, started to look into our impact on the environment, and eventually realized that society, politics, and all those structural relationships that govern our world are deeply connected to what's going wrong in the environment. From that point, as well as with the aid of historical examples, it became clear what the solutions were. It also became clear that implementing them would be hard, and I would be unlikely to see success before I died. None of that really changes the calculus though, now does it. Why would it?

Can you perhaps for one moment stop questioning my personal motives and engage with the idea I'm espousing? Everyone ought to know by now that calling me a hypocrite changes nothing about the validity of my argument, so with that in mind, do you care to demonstrate what makes you so comfortable to disengage from the discussion in this way?

So I'll ask again: what's idealistic and unworkable? I'm coming from a place of the deepest realism. Unfortunately the reality that I am grappling with is deeply unworkable, deeply in trouble. Bo_sox appears to see this, his response is to just shut down and turn away from it. That's one discussion, I want to have it with him. You, Octavious, have the reaction of saying "no that's not reality, actually reality is some other way, a much nicer thing that I prefer." This is called denial. So I think that's the level we should start from with you. I suspect you don't understand the gravity of the situation and the fundamental nature of the solutions required to get out of the position we're in. Because you don't understand that, you see the proposed plans of action proposed as "extreme" or "idealistic." If they are extreme it is only because they have to be. They are not unnecessarily extreme. Nothing in what I am proposing in unnecessarily harsh, unfortunately for you. I'm not some boogeyman who just wants to preach doom. I don't love it anymore than anyone else does. You seem to be implying that I get off to the idea that we're heading for hell in less than a century. How dare you? The magnitude of the challenge we're facing today can scarcely be overstated. It's fairly depressing that it still can not be easily discussed in open company without being widely mocked as self-involved, insane, or some other such thing. What I am talking about comes from a place of deep reason and concern for general well-being, and you know that to be true, so stop being a dick about it.

"Woah! Not wanting to be associated with sandal wearing tree huggers is not the prerogative of the right. Stop trying to insult anyone that fancies a bacon sandwich now and then by calling them a fascist."

Industrialized consumerism is inextricably tied to capitalist ideology and right wing ideology as a result. That's simply the way it is, I didn't invent that. I'm not calling anyone a fascist, just right-wing, which is fascism-lite.

i just want to second this: "Industrialized consumerism is inextricably tied to capitalist ideology and right wing ideology as a result. That's simply the way it is, I didn't invent that. I'm not calling anyone a fascist, just right-wing, which is fascism-lite."

Also Imperialism. The racist colonial exploitation of other peoples.

Th ideology is tied to the idea that we can control, take and profit from a people/environment/weaker group, and therefore we *should* do so.

Sure capitalism is really efficient, it has different corporations following the same philosophy, so if one fails the whole system doesn't. The diversity of corporations can try different forms of oppression/exploitation - so anti-woman, anti-local, anti-native, anti-enviroment, or anti-animal practices can all be seen as part of a great underlying 'profit motive' based ideology.

Unfortunately this easily divides opposition into different groups - you have feminists, environmentalists, black rights movements, anti-poverty movements, anti-colonial movements... Etc. But thet are all completely divided.

Still the underlying problem is with how 'profit' is defined. If a company pays money to a share holder that goes down as a net gain, if the company pays an employee it goes down as a loss, if it helps the environment it doesn't measure that impact because we don't have a monetary measure for environmental costs.

So one counts as 'profit' - which is to be maximised. The second as a 'loss' which mus be minimised. And the third is not measured, so it can he ignored completely (whether good or bad).

But in reality, the workers being paid is a social good, or 'profit' for society, and so is the environment being helped. They just don't count as a 'profit' under a capitalist system.

The fact that human society in general benefits when a company provides services is a justfication for capitalism, but the system doesn't care about the services, they are a cost and something to be minimised. (Nb services may harm our habitat and taking a wider view of thing may bot be a social good, but especially when you go beyond an antropocentric view, damaging and exploiting the environment to the benefit if humans is not necessarily a good of any kind)