What's best for Earth?

I would love to participate in conservations efforts as long as the goal of those efforts is to maximize human well being. I have absolutely no desire to participate in conservation efforts that seek to minimize human impact on the environment for the sake of minimizing human impact of the environment. My environmental and conservation goal is not necessarily minimizing human impact on the environment; my environmental and conservation goal is to maximize human well being.

 

Why have you not committed suicide?

 

Is the analysis or evaluation incorrect?

Who is to say such is not the case?

 

What would such ultimately accomplish that would serve to justify the endeavor?

 

I'd be surprised if it weren't if you're being sincere. I am sincere. I am very happy. I am happy that there are more people than ever living longer and healthier lives filled with more liberty and justice than at any other time in human history. I am quite pleased with human progress. I have no good reason to believe that the human condition, both quantitatively and qualitatively, will not continue to improve at an ever accelerating rate.

 

Instead of all the fighting over Climate change and what can be done to change it? Maybe we should look at studies done by Scientists and groups not paid Taxpayer dollars by the FederAl Government. Do you really think Scientific studies back with Government Funding is going to report findings against what our Government and the World Climate Change Governments want to prove?

People do the research. We should spending our money to find ways to deal with the natural climate cycle and what may be coming in the next 100 years. The cycle is continuous. Ice age, warming, pre-glacial, glacial, warming. As far as I know we are still in a pre-glacial age. Each as has cooling and warming periods.

We can try to take care of our Oceans and it's environment to protect its inhabitants which are crucial to the Climate.

That means controlled shipping routes so the Whales and other sea mammals aren't effected by the noise. Control of commercial fishing around the world. Control of trash and chemical dumping.

Ways to limit the effects of volcanic erruptions. Preservation of artic animals. And relocation of those endangered if possible.

Until inexpensive energy alternatives are available, gas, coal, nuclear are the best value of energy.

Do you really want a Socialist government where you keep only 10-20% of what you earn.

Not me. And not what I want for my Children

 

In many ways you make sense...The Earth will be fine for another Billion years or so (until the Red Giant stage of our star), Humans and life however ….not so much.

 

So, by your philosophy, if it makes some humans to happy to secretly torture a dog, then torturing that dog would be a good thing.

Don't count on your "Everything exists only to serve humanity!" philosophy to catch on, as it's kind of horrifying.

 

I do not believe that you inferred that from me. I believe that your extreme absurd example is as close as you can get to an actual response. It's one thing to infer something that some else does not imply. That's just an error. It's altogether something else to impute to another something that you, yourself, did not infer.

I want what is best for human beings. The very thought of torturing dogs, in and of itself, could not be any further from what is best for human beings. Who thinks like that?

 

How do you propose to reduce the population of the earth ??

 

Reducing the earth's population to 60% of the current level is not horrifying ??

 

Why would anyone believe that the elephants, bison, and wolves will some day be gone ?? They are protected species now.

 

So you think the human race is no different than a virus ??

 

Is the comparison factually incorrect?

The world is filled with horrifying diseases that kill indiscriminately, many of which are still being discovered even today. No one has been able to identify or determine where these diseases come from, how they come into existence, or why so many of them exist when their only purpose is to kill so many. Yet these diseases do not seem to affect the native animal species that reside within the same regions, and who even play host to them.

The simple truth of the matter is that eloba, malaria, west nile virus, eastern equine encephalitis, and countless other assorted diseases and pathogens are actually the antibodies of the planet, trying to protect it from the foreign invader that is the human species. It is the most logical conclusion to explain why the world is so inhospitable to the human species, yet so welcoming to so many other species. Antibodies protect the host body from pathogens by killing said pathogens with extreme prejudice, and diseases like ebola can wipe out a densely-populated continent in short order if left unchecked. It is a most accurate and appropriate comparison. Hemorrhagic fevers and the like are esentially the white blood cells of the planet.

 

They do.
They believe that the only real problem is human beings multiplying, filling the earth and subduing it.
The environmentalist's goal for the environmental is to minimize human impact on the environment.
The humanist's goal for the environment is to maximize human well being.
The Earth, and all that is about it, has value only to the extent that it has value to human beings.

 

Okay... consider this.... It is now legal to bait and kill Deer in Alabama.... It is also legal to bait Bear in Alaska. Alaska is a big place but Alabama not so much. How long before the Deer are gone. Do you really think they have a chance? Laws change ....

 

That’s bizarre.

 

What has been the effect on the deer population ??

 

Yes. Malthusianism is a significant part of global warming alarmism.

 

Any species that destroys the environment that he requires to survive will perish.

Humanity is no exception to this rule.

The earth will continue to exist without humanity for several more billions of years.

Humanity won't survive if it adopts your "subduing" dogma.

 

Subduing the environment is responsible for you being alive.

 

Do not rely on the current fashion of law, whenever or where ever that is, to represent what's best for human beings.

 

Opening up another window and boning up on Malthusianism. What a wonderful world we live in.
Does anyone really want to permanently go back to sitting around the campfire unable to fully appreciate what the guy across from you is saying? I just learned something. Apparently, lots of people have already come to the very ideas that I was pretty sure that I'd observed. At least this time around, I was able to learn something without finding out that I was wrong about something else; and at my age, that's rare. I love backpacking, camping, bushcraft, etc., but I have no desire to regress human life either qualitatively or quantitatively.

I want human beings to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it. I want human being to take dangerous and dirty wilderness and make it safe and clean for human beings. I am not Malthusian as I've learned.

 

Yes. Malthusians have been claiming that the human race would starve to death due to lack of food production if allowed to multiply unchecked.

100 years from now the average African will enjoy the standard of living of current citizens of Belgium. There will still be elephants and bison. How is that a bad thing?