Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:36 amThe very notion of "preserving nature" is the sheer height of human arrogance. Nature could shake us off like a dog shakes off fleas and it would forget us soon after, only for a new ecosystem to emerge. On this planet or another.
You aren't preserving nature, morons! You are preserving your habitat! Nature can look after itself.
I'm a Carlin fan too. Why quote without attribution?
I am a nature lover and I don't apologise for it. In fact, anyone who doesn't love nature is the true moron IMO, pathetically out of touch with who and what they are and facing some hard life lessons if they don't get their heads straight. Those who are fighting to, as Carlin put it, "preserve their own habitats" are ultimately hoping to slow the demise of the wild - to buy time for a "soft landing". When you are an old fuck you don't worry your long term future habitat, you worry about we are giving the next generations.
This is known as intelligent behaviour. Morons are the ones who don't think ahead and consume thoughtlessly, unable to adapt to changing circumstances, no more strategic than if they were earthworms.
Carlin would have said that people that stupid will just naturally select themselves out, and good riddance. If the rest of us, who actually think about life, are not strong enough to push these anti-nature fools out of the way and start working to the betterment of future generations then I guess we'll deserve to be deselected too. That'll just leave the super wealthy and their robots, as nothing short of an "planet killer" asteroid will remove them (they are actually the future - we and other animal are the cannon fodder).
My issue is mainly with wanton wastefulness, cruelty and lack of empathy towards other species. Sure, we we have to kill to live and don't want to spend our lives treading on eggshells, so to speak, but you have to admit that the wastefulness and sheer bastardry is way over the top.
My refugee father, struggling to survive on the chicken farm his family borrowed to start up, would have apoplexy at the way resources are used up and thrown away today without sense or reason. Never mind the way we waste fresh water. Again, that brings the word "moronic" to mind, but again, not towards "the evil Greens" (as they are thought of by reactionary Fox drones).
It's not about "saving the planet" and never has been. Humans are part of the Earth's biosphere, which is a very thin slimy film that exists between a similarly thin film of atmosphere and crust. Most of the Earth is mantle and core and I don't know of any movements where people are trying to save the Earth's mantle and core. I think we assume they'll be fine. Thus, "saving the planet" must obviously be referring to the balance and stability between atmosphere, biosphere and crust, which humanity has been shown to be capable of hugely changing.
Given that humans and their technosphere are an inseparable part of the biosphere, and we are rapidly breaking down ecosystems, then that means that the biosphere is reforming. Oh well, that happens - like employees, you just hope not to be in the middle of the restructure.
The idea of separating humans from nature is, you guessed it, a moronic viewpoint. We didn't come especially from God or the stars, nor are we a virus or a cancer. We simply evolved from the mammal line, apparently starting with simple shrewlike marsupials that survived the dinosaurs' extinction. Now it turns out that humans are agents of change triggering a new mass extinction event.
It's one thing to accept that the wild is being gentrified so we can cram more of the populace into high rise hominid holders. That's obvious. It's a whole other thing to fail to preserve as much of the wild for as long as possible, to slow the changes and reduce impacts on future generations.
The issue, as noted, depends on whether one is sensible enough to think ahead or whether they are just m......
.