Sorry, I did not realize you are just a troll. Here though for anyone else's reference, you know those that actually like to go research instead of just spouting off.
I worked in the desert through Student Conservation Corps in their Desert Restoration Corps, working on saving the desert tortoise among other things. I didn't go there to commune with nature. http://www.thesca.org/
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in terms of Goodwill either. Goodwill provides jobs for those who otherwise could not get them specifically by selling clothes that would otherwise end up in landfills. http://eartheasy.com/blog/2010/05/lets-keep-clothing-out-of-...
Finally, saying Kiva causes suicide is plain false. This would be akin to saying that Apple causes suicide because someone's World of Warcraft account got cut off so they killed themselves. It's so much apples and oranges that it begs the question if you researched anything at all before making that statement. Just to reiterate, no one involved in Kiva loans has committed suicide, I'm guessing you grabbed some random article about microfinance and then associated the two with absolutely no diligence at all. Don't take my word for it, go inform yourself: http://ask.metafilter.com/125386/Help-me-avoid-being-a-loan-... or from a Fellow http://fellowsblog.kiva.org/2010/01/07/bad-roads-interest-ra... or straight from Kiva http://www.kiva.org/updates/kiva/2010/04/15/new-york-times-a...
And no, your comment does not get any point across other than to say that you like to make flippant comments without any objective facts, the very thing you supposedly argue against. If you had done even 10 minutes of research on anything you just spouted off about you would have realized you made absolutely no sense.
The thing I don't get about these articles is their author's complaints. They're complaining people ... don't kill themselves. But obviously they themselves don't suicide either.
So as I see it, they may have 2 intentions :
1) actually suicide themselves. But then why are they writing articles and also, no suicide ... So while this is their declared intention, it can't be their real intention.
2) increase their own success and, therefore increase their own environmental impact, success (and therefore kids) and all they say is evil.
This would also make them lying hypocrites : they're not looking to improve the environment, they're looking to make it worse.
Your assertion that people wouldn't damage the environment in the pursuit of self enrichment is possibly the most naive thing I've ever seen written down.
It also flies in the face of 'hard data' like climate change, pollution of waterways and the air, extermination of species and all the other stuff people do in pursuit of money.
Why downvoted? Maybe two reasons. First, it's off topic. You look like you're trying to find a way to sneak your hobbyhorse into the discussion, even when it doesn't really fit.
Second, by the same logic, the best thing you could do for the environment is go on a murder spree and then commit suicide.
That should appall you. You should respond "No, because..." (If you don't, seriously, please get help rather than committing suicide.)
But what's the reason for your "no"? Because the murder spree is immoral? (It is.) Because suicide would hurt too many people around you? (It would.) Or is it because, despite the environmental cost of your continued existence, you feel that you could make a positive (net) difference with the rest of your life?
They've planted 35 million trees[1] through volunteer activity, trained farmers and provided schooling to poor villagers, and they are bad for environment? what sources are you using?
And secondly, could you be so kind as to provide your preferred alternative organization that provides these resources in the country? I would like to learn why you think their efforts are disingenuous, and how they would function as an organization , buying assets such as centres/schools etc without charging rich(relative to the 400m starving ones in the country) people fees to attend yoga/meditation retreats.
[1] https://www.ishaoutreach.org/en/project-greenhands
I had this coworker who frequently shared their thoughts on resolving ecology issues and at some point it just started to come across as “everyone should just lay down and die so we stop having a negative impact on the environment.”
I appreciate we have a very long way to go to resolve our environmental impact, and that the most effective means are wholesale abandonment of many practices, but this kind of logic always strikes me as privileged, impractical, and inconsiderate of its effect on people.
Life has to be worth living if you want to convince people they should ensure it can happen.
A) You provide no evidence for your major claim (that the people fighting change are doing it for selfish motivations). Neither in general, nor in the case of this specific desert.
B) Even if the _motivations_ for doing something were selfish, it could be that the actual environmental concerns themselves were valid.
Don't get me wrong, the phenomenon that you speak of (social parasites) does exist. But in this case I was hoping for a more environmental (as opposed to sociological) discussion. Just to be clear, you don't disagree that valid environmental concerns could exist, right?
Your approach will fail for the same reason than an ethical environmental appeal does.
Enough humans who feel and fear their impending mortality are selfish and vindictive enough to obstruct change because they want to conserve whatever material comforts they have now and do not care about what happens to other people after they're dead. I would go so far as to say that some of them take a perverse pleasure in the idea of everyone else being worse off, going by the number of facially specious arguments and overtly sadistic rhetoric deployed by many self-styled 'skeptics'.
I'm blaming blindly siding with environmentalists (especially corporate funded ones) without reasoning through the consequences. If you want to call those hippies than yeah I'm blaming the hippies, this is a direct consequence of their actions no matter what you call them. The exact same thing is going to keep happening if they don't change their behavior.
Ah, an arm of the Cato Institute, that makes sense.
Seriously, we have a lot of very immediate work to attend to with regards to our environment. Our vital ecosystems are literally under assault from many of our current ways of living. That we have not had a watershed moment of ecosystem collapse yet is frankly astonishing, but be assured, it is coming, and be assured that there are powers-that-be that have the most to gain from suppressing open dialogue about this. The people funding this type of editorial are among those who will be least affected by the dire impact that the destruction of the natural world will have on all peoples' ability to live happy, prosperous lives. For them, only their personal wealth (read, happiness) is at stake, and as far as that goes, their perspicacity ends at their next quarterly report.
You're answering literally every comment on this thread, with this "passive aggressive" tone that will do nothing but derail the conservation. That's the definition of a troll. Why don't you make a point of your own instead?
Attacking caveman cultists is not a dismissal of environmentalism.
There is an enormous distinction between pure waste or negligence such as what we see here, and genuine activity that benefits people.
If I were leaving my windows open with the AC/heating on full blast, or burning plastic in my garden - sure, that's not cool.
But going after genuine things with utility (eating meat, driving, having children, etc) is the quickest way to get me to completely ignore what you're saying.
These changes don't make the world better. They would make my life significantly worse, whilst potentially very slightly improving the lives of people who are ascetic.
Even if they'd kill themself to safe the environment there'd be people like you, complaining that you'd done it in a much more environmental friendly way.
Say a tiny bit more about you than it says about the topic at hand. Grow up.
For some people the potential money they make justifies the change, the environment be damned. They'll bend over backwards to rationalize it with false equivalencies as either being benign or actually benevolent when in truth it is neither.
I worked in the desert through Student Conservation Corps in their Desert Restoration Corps, working on saving the desert tortoise among other things. I didn't go there to commune with nature. http://www.thesca.org/
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in terms of Goodwill either. Goodwill provides jobs for those who otherwise could not get them specifically by selling clothes that would otherwise end up in landfills. http://eartheasy.com/blog/2010/05/lets-keep-clothing-out-of-...
Finally, saying Kiva causes suicide is plain false. This would be akin to saying that Apple causes suicide because someone's World of Warcraft account got cut off so they killed themselves. It's so much apples and oranges that it begs the question if you researched anything at all before making that statement. Just to reiterate, no one involved in Kiva loans has committed suicide, I'm guessing you grabbed some random article about microfinance and then associated the two with absolutely no diligence at all. Don't take my word for it, go inform yourself: http://ask.metafilter.com/125386/Help-me-avoid-being-a-loan-... or from a Fellow http://fellowsblog.kiva.org/2010/01/07/bad-roads-interest-ra... or straight from Kiva http://www.kiva.org/updates/kiva/2010/04/15/new-york-times-a...
And no, your comment does not get any point across other than to say that you like to make flippant comments without any objective facts, the very thing you supposedly argue against. If you had done even 10 minutes of research on anything you just spouted off about you would have realized you made absolutely no sense.
reply