3 ms·

This is a terrible take. Any kind of agriculture changes the local environment. Boats on a river, big buildings, wind mills, all of it. I assume in good faith

by ch4s3 4y ago

This is a terrible take. Any kind of agriculture changes the local environment. Boats on a river, big buildings, wind mills, all of it. I assume in good faith that your value is pristine nature but it’s a fallacy.

JoshTko 4y ago
Are you suggesting nothing can be done? I'm just advocating for reasonable sustainability. Our current path simply shifts harm to the least fortunate of today.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  No, I’m saying that the black and white approach of never effecting “the environment” doesn’t make sense from the jump. It treats the earth as a thing that was static before human intervention, which is simply not true. There are a lot of great reasons to want to arrest climate change which is a very different matter, or infant to preserve or rehabilitate particular ecosystems.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
uoaei 4y ago
This high-school-debate-style approach -- ie, assuming there are only two sides to any discussion, and that criticism of one side implies advocacy of the other -- is one of the more antisocial things we have developed as a culture of late. It is most prevalent on mainstream news outlets but also exists in plenty in allegedly reasonable discussion forums such as this one. To summarize: yikes.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  What I am saying is precisely that there needs to be nuance to the discussion rather than a dogmatic appeal to some archaic and Edenic past. The OP in my estimation has a very anti-human set of values. I’m specifically say that we need to have thoughtful conversations about what we preserve and what we change.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    > I assume in good faith that your value is pristine nature but it’s a fallacy. This sentence alone proves your entire reply unsound. You have assumed something which is obviously irrelevant given not only the context of this conversation but even the tone and content of that comment which you supposedly critique. Then you go on to be condescending. You can convince people of your honesty and good faith by acting honestly and in good faith, not by trying to reframe your hurried comments ex post facto to retrofit some desired message from what is obviously a bad take.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      I don;t know what you want here. I think the op was in good faith appealing to the notion of pristine nature, but I believe that idea is a fallacy. What else can I say? An the rest of the comment is completely logically sound, there is no way for people to exist without marking nature and bending ecosystems we see evidence on the land and in the fossil records of the earliest people.
      - uoaei 4y ago
        > I think the op was in good faith appealing to the notion of pristine nature I don't. It's by now clear they don't think they were doing that either. But your assumption colored your entire reply as a response to an argument that no one was making.

by ch4s3 4y ago

JoshTko 4y ago

Are you suggesting nothing can be done? I'm just advocating for reasonable sustainability. Our current path simply shifts harm to the least fortunate of today.

ch4s3 4y ago
No, I’m saying that the black and white approach of never effecting “the environment” doesn’t make sense from the jump. It treats the earth as a thing that was static before human intervention, which is simply not true. There are a lot of great reasons to want to arrest climate change which is a very different matter, or infant to preserve or rehabilitate particular ecosystems.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

uoaei 4y ago

This high-school-debate-style approach -- ie, assuming there are only two sides to any discussion, and that criticism of one side implies advocacy of the other -- is one of the more antisocial things we have developed as a culture of late. It is most prevalent on mainstream news outlets but also exists in plenty in allegedly reasonable discussion forums such as this one. To summarize: yikes.

ch4s3 4y ago
What I am saying is precisely that there needs to be nuance to the discussion rather than a dogmatic appeal to some archaic and Edenic past. The OP in my estimation has a very anti-human set of values. I’m specifically say that we need to have thoughtful conversations about what we preserve and what we change.
- uoaei 4y ago
  > I assume in good faith that your value is pristine nature but it’s a fallacy. This sentence alone proves your entire reply unsound. You have assumed something which is obviously irrelevant given not only the context of this conversation but even the tone and content of that comment which you supposedly critique. Then you go on to be condescending. You can convince people of your honesty and good faith by acting honestly and in good faith, not by trying to reframe your hurried comments ex post facto to retrofit some desired message from what is obviously a bad take.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I don;t know what you want here. I think the op was in good faith appealing to the notion of pristine nature, but I believe that idea is a fallacy. What else can I say? An the rest of the comment is completely logically sound, there is no way for people to exist without marking nature and bending ecosystems we see evidence on the land and in the fossil records of the earliest people.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      > I think the op was in good faith appealing to the notion of pristine nature I don't. It's by now clear they don't think they were doing that either. But your assumption colored your entire reply as a response to an argument that no one was making.