3 ms·

> why would you think just stripping and entire habitat Again, you completely misunderstood my position. I'm not making a comment on deserts, or this deserts s

by oneloop 10y ago

> why would you think just stripping and entire habitat Again, you completely misunderstood my position. I'm not making a comment on deserts, or this deserts specifically. I'm making the following comment: "it seems to me that certain people (which I've just learned includes you) seem to believe that any change to any environment is necessarily bad"

dogma1138 10y ago
I'm not an environmentalist, and again I don't understand how you define "good or bad", you seem to operate on so basic/childish terms that I'm honestly starting to suspect your engagement is nothing more than clever quasi trolling. We have very little ability to gauge the true impact of environmental changes so far we've learned that for the most part any manmade or man accelerated change has in the long run an adverse effect on humans and the planet as a whole. There is no conflict between humans being the geoengineers they are trying to stop adverse changes to their global habitat that can threaten them, while wanting to preserve natural habitats that serve as a home to countless other species. Most people think nature is pretty nice, and well pretty pretty, screwing it over needlessly especially considering that every time we do it gets worse for us is what most of us by now came to define as "bad" because it has a negative effect on our civilization. On the other hand if you say make an argument that we found the cure for cancer but to make it we need to harvest every blue belly turtle in the planet and cause the species to go pretty much extinct I don't think many people including me would have much of a moral objection to it since while I do feel bad for the blue belly turtle (I made this species up, it might exist but i don't know :)) the positive effect on human civilization is most likely going to outweigh any negative effects the extinction of this turtle will have on the environment.
- oneloop 10y ago
  Well, you SHOULD understand. I'm speaking in term of "loss of lives over the long run". Your words. More "loss of lives over the long run" is the bad alternative, when an alternative exists of less "loss of lives over the long run", which is the good one. You seem to be writing your responses as if I were claiming that "it's ok to trash the environment", or something, which is not true (see my other comments in this thread). Anyway, I'm bored, sorry.

by oneloop 10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago

I'm not an environmentalist, and again I don't understand how you define "good or bad", you seem to operate on so basic/childish terms that I'm honestly starting to suspect your engagement is nothing more than clever quasi trolling. We have very little ability to gauge the true impact of environmental changes so far we've learned that for the most part any manmade or man accelerated change has in the long run an adverse effect on humans and the planet as a whole. There is no conflict between humans being the geoengineers they are trying to stop adverse changes to their global habitat that can threaten them, while wanting to preserve natural habitats that serve as a home to countless other species. Most people think nature is pretty nice, and well pretty pretty, screwing it over needlessly especially considering that every time we do it gets worse for us is what most of us by now came to define as "bad" because it has a negative effect on our civilization. On the other hand if you say make an argument that we found the cure for cancer but to make it we need to harvest every blue belly turtle in the planet and cause the species to go pretty much extinct I don't think many people including me would have much of a moral objection to it since while I do feel bad for the blue belly turtle (I made this species up, it might exist but i don't know :)) the positive effect on human civilization is most likely going to outweigh any negative effects the extinction of this turtle will have on the environment.

oneloop 10y ago
Well, you SHOULD understand. I'm speaking in term of "loss of lives over the long run". Your words. More "loss of lives over the long run" is the bad alternative, when an alternative exists of less "loss of lives over the long run", which is the good one. You seem to be writing your responses as if I were claiming that "it's ok to trash the environment", or something, which is not true (see my other comments in this thread). Anyway, I'm bored, sorry.