3 ms·

> [...] but sometimes I think that some people get uncomfortably "religious" about the environment in particular. I'm not one of them. [...] Could it be, maybe

> [...] but sometimes I think that some people get uncomfortably "religious" about the environment in particular. I'm not one of them. [...] Could it be, maybe, that your statements reflect the thought of some people that might be denying ecological disasters ? What's religious about being horrified at the loss of 70% of the North American Forest ? If that is indeed the correct number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_Sta... : a 25% loss for the US with a stabilized 20th century but this here http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lect... hints that primary forest area aren't counted the same way http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/defores9.JPG http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lect...)... What's wrong with being religious, anyway ? > It's just that as I drive from coast to coast, as I have done more than once, I'm not overwhelmed with the horror of the landscape. May it be because you can't compare to the same ride 500 years ago and so the impact doesn't sink in ?

jerf 13y ago
"Could it be, maybe, that your statements reflect the thought of some people that might be denying ecological disasters ?" That is a nakedly emotionally manipulative reply with no substance. I mean this judgment to apply to your entire post, just quoted the worst part.
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  > That is a nakedly emotionally manipulative reply with no substance. That is the effect I wanted to achieve in order to better parody and criticize parent's own manipulative wording: "some" people, "sometimes", veiled attempt to accuse opponents of being "religious", etc. I thought it was more obvious, sorry. Next time I'll just state it plainly like you did (no irony). For what it's worth I couldn't find any numbers regarding the 70% loss and what it really refers to.
  - jerf 13y ago
    Heh, yes, that never works. To be clearly a parody one must post something that would "obviously" never be posted seriously by someone. This turns out to be a high bar. Especially in emotional areas like environmentalism.
sageikosa 13y ago
Maybe because 5 billion years ago there wasn't anything life-like going on around these parts. Many changes have occurred since then, and many will occur yet again. Not every genetic sequence is sacred, and the vast majority that modern taxonomy would consider "species" have come and gone without me shedding a tear.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  That is correct, but which species before humans has caused so much change to the environment in such a short time? Sure, there's the natural eb and flow of the environment. But that tends to happen over very long periods of time. When you're talking about 70% of forests being destroyed within 500 years though, that's something else entirely. Make no mistake: the change our planet has gone through over that short time period is unprecedented.
  - hnaccount8888 13y ago
    Make no mistake: the change our planet has gone through over that short time period is unprecedented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K/T_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K/T_event
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      Context is king. The T event was caused by a meteor, as opposed to a species.
  - sageikosa 13y ago
    > That is correct, but which species before humans has caused so much change to the environment in such a short time? None. And I don't think mankind should hold itself back due to the other "species" lack of initiative.

jerf 13y ago

"Could it be, maybe, that your statements reflect the thought of some people that might be denying ecological disasters ?" That is a nakedly emotionally manipulative reply with no substance. I mean this judgment to apply to your entire post, just quoted the worst part.

johnchristopher 13y ago
> That is a nakedly emotionally manipulative reply with no substance. That is the effect I wanted to achieve in order to better parody and criticize parent's own manipulative wording: "some" people, "sometimes", veiled attempt to accuse opponents of being "religious", etc. I thought it was more obvious, sorry. Next time I'll just state it plainly like you did (no irony). For what it's worth I couldn't find any numbers regarding the 70% loss and what it really refers to.
- jerf 13y ago
  Heh, yes, that never works. To be clearly a parody one must post something that would "obviously" never be posted seriously by someone. This turns out to be a high bar. Especially in emotional areas like environmentalism.

sageikosa 13y ago

Maybe because 5 billion years ago there wasn't anything life-like going on around these parts. Many changes have occurred since then, and many will occur yet again. Not every genetic sequence is sacred, and the vast majority that modern taxonomy would consider "species" have come and gone without me shedding a tear.

enraged_camel 13y ago
That is correct, but which species before humans has caused so much change to the environment in such a short time? Sure, there's the natural eb and flow of the environment. But that tends to happen over very long periods of time. When you're talking about 70% of forests being destroyed within 500 years though, that's something else entirely. Make no mistake: the change our planet has gone through over that short time period is unprecedented.
- hnaccount8888 13y ago
  Make no mistake: the change our planet has gone through over that short time period is unprecedented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K/T_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K/T_event
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    Context is king. The T event was caused by a meteor, as opposed to a species.
- sageikosa 13y ago
  > That is correct, but which species before humans has caused so much change to the environment in such a short time? None. And I don't think mankind should hold itself back due to the other "species" lack of initiative.