Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Cistern Logic, Aug 1, 2015.
So you ARE a misanthrope. Okay then. There's really no addressing that, if that's your core belief.
Don't be a troll. He said that AFTER already saying "considering [...]the general torture-fest that is the meat and dairy industry and the insane climate changes that have occurred as a direct result of our industrialisation, I'd say our impact on other species (and our presence on Earth in general) has become little more than a plague in the larger sense. We're driving the Earth to extremes and burning down all of the resources we need most to survive. In the long run it's likely to be irreparable if we don't make serious changes."
He said precisely misanthropic cynicism, then followed it up by claiming he doesn't dislike humanity. My comment is validated by what he said, not at all invalidated by 6 words that followed and were totally contradictory to his overall theme.
If you want, I can add "hypocrite" to the list, and then it'll be made whole. But I think he's just, like most misanthropic sorts, misled and naive. Not OUT to be a hypocrite, just oblivious to the times he contradicts himself.
If I decide to completely remove all personal restraints and just go on a vindictive piss fest and just insult everyone, but SOMEWHERE in the midst of all that unmitigated rage, I leave the words, "I'm not flaming", will that undo it all? Cause that's exactly what you're suggesting that tiny comment means.
I'm not. I found that quite funny so I thought I would point out the humor in it. In your rush to prove a point you forgot to have a sense of humor.
Except for the fact where he is right. Nothing he said is misanthropic in nature. He isn't saying he despises the human race for the harm we have inflicted on the planet. He is stating the fact that we are destroying the planet and we are the cause of a great deal of harm.
Frankly you going off the handle at every little playful jab is a bit irritating. You have to be one of the most abrasive people on here.
It's not off the handle at all. You used an emote that is entitled "I am smugness, hear me roar". It was following pruning a quote to exclude all the prominent and pertinent content while highlighting the extraneous and minimal words. Maybe I could've used a different word than "troll", but the bottom line is NONE of them would have been remotely complimentary. But they WOULD have been appropriate. Cause that wasn't nice. If you think humor excuses the slightest degree of maliciousness, you're mistaken. Just like that tiny comment didn't excuse the meat of his post. Like I said, I could make some kind of HUGE bash post just tearing into everyone, then in one tiny little crevice say "I'm not flaming", and it would be the exact same thing. If I did that, and someone said "You're a flamer", and you quoted them for saying that and then quoted that tiny, non-representative line of "I'm not flaming" and make a "joke" about it, do you really think that would be cool at all? The only place one could possibly find a healthy form of humor in was the contradiction itself, but you made it out to be a poke at me. Not liking that, as the recipient of your jab, doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor (as you're well aware).
Furthermore, he WASN'T right. If what he said was objective, and absent of this very negative adjectives, you might be able to say he wasn't wrong. But he included an ABUNDANCE of those negative adjectives. It's not just the meat industry, it's the TORTURE meat industry. It's not just that we have an impact on our environment, it's that we are a PLAGUE in our impact on our environment. That is textbook misanthropy.
I won't argue what he did or didn't mean since he can speak for himself, but I will say I feel like you are putting words in his mouth.
You don't have to hate the human race to admit that we have fucked this planet and everything on it up. If we were not here the planet would be doing much better. That is a fact. There just wouldn't be anyone here to enjoy it.
Correction we didn't fuck the planet, we fucked ourselves, te planet will adapt and we will die off by our own shitheaded actions as a species. Probably in very humilliating and excruciating ways.
Ugh. I am loathe to see, of all people, Walpknut come along and save the day with some sense. But hey, when he's right, he's right.
You're still a hater, though. =D
That's just not true. BOTH parts, in fact. You DO need to have some kind of misalignment towards the human race to see these things, because otherwise you wouldn't be approaching the interaction we have with our environment with such a negative direction against us. One of the things I really enjoyed about playing The Last of Us was their documentary including the research they did on what a world would look like if civilization came to an end. They went through a list of all of the CONSTANT jobs that are essential to keeping a city in working order, because without it, nature would take over in a few short years. In essence, the elements are CONSTANTLY winning the gradual battle of "taking over" territory that mankind has settled in. We have fucked up nothing, we've desperately tried to stay alive. Water damage and plant overgrowth WRECKS structural integrity, and it doesn't take long for these things to move in if we don't keep them at bay.
Here in California we're experiencing the most recent incarnation of our repeat, annual clash with our environment: brush fires. Every year hills catch fire and houses get destroyed and sometimes people die. Every year we rebuild, and it just happens again. These are natural brush fires, not cases of arson, or we have some VERY disciplined, schedule-based arsonists in our state! We haven't found any way to "fuck up" our environment here, meanwhile we're perpetually at its mercy. People bitching about the drought or water shortages are REALLY complaining that A DESERT IS A DESERT, and that our artificially altered surroundings have failed to magically overtaken the course of nature itself. It'll never happen. We'll always need to compensate for nature's control over us, because we'll never be the one in control. It's very arrogant to assume otherwise.
Back before Carlin got really cynical and his routines stopped being riotously funny, he did a bit about environmentalism and misanthropism. He brought up how WAY more than 99% of all species have gone extinct of their own accord, with no human involvement. His shrugging "WE didn't kill them all" as a punchline was as hilarious as it was accurate. He went a bit far by saying that the human race amounts to little more than "a surface nuisance" and that eventually mother nature will "shake us off like a bad habit", but it's not entirely untrue. We are an organism trying to stay alive in the midst of a constantly progressing and evolving food chain and environment, and we DO NOT have control over hat. I'd like to believe that's not so that we'll be "shrugged off" by mother mature, but nothing lasts forever. We will eventually die out LONG before our environment does.
A completely mechanical world like Corucsant is just physically impossible. We cannot ever do that, not in the distant future, nor not ever. We don't have nearly enough ores to coat the world like that. Nor would it even be practical. It is what it is; science fiction.
I can't believe I am arguing that humanity has damaged the planet in numerous ways. I know it isn't irreparable harm. Where did I say that it was permanent? I watched Life After People which portrayed basically what The Last of Us did except better - which is nature overtaking once populated city ruins, flora and fauna thriving, etc. I understand the concept that nature has a way of recovering from even the most catastrophic of events. I read books too. Sometimes they have big words in them, so I have to use the internetz to figure it out though.
I'm not even saying that the human race is a bad thing or holds no merit - just that we treat our planet and everything on it like shit. We can all hold hands and talk about all the great things humanity has done while thousands of species are wiped out due to our impact on the environment. At this rate the only exotic animals you will be able to see will be in a zoo. If you live in China the smog can be so bad you can barely breathe. I don't feel like expounding my belief on the matter any more than that, just that humanity isn't the only thing of value in the universe.
Saying that it's not irreparable damage is still calling our presence "damage". It's still an outlook of us in the negative.
For example, people who think we destroy forests to sate our need for lumber and paper products completely overlook that these industries rely on tree farms; we PLANT trees so we can harvest them. If we stop using these tree products, we stop planting trees. Want more trees, use more paper. That's how it works. There is a stereotype of Americans being pig-like when it comes to 2 sorts of foods: french fries and soda. I won't disagree that they are BOOMING businesses, and hell, I like both. But regardless of what you think of our overall dietary habits, does our excessive consumption result in potatoes and corn going practically extinct? No, the total opposite; we plant the crops so we can harvest them. We are creating to meet our needs.
These are not destructive tendencies. We aren't wantonly removing our environment from around us, we are using it to our benefit as best as possible. Failing at times, granted, but NOT out of intention. We can't just use the same space for the same crops, we have to alternate to allow the soil to replenish its nutrients. Supportive, not destructive. For every example of a third world country cutting down their rain forests or for every China you have filling its cities with smog, there are many more examples of countries and cities that clean themselves up and create when they harvest so as not to be wasteful or destructive... and these things all come out of one common goal: self benefit. We don't WANT to live in smoggy streets, so let's burn our fuel more cleanly. We WANT to have trees and plant life in general to create oxygen for us, so we plant more trees.
It is true that we are relatively UNIQUE (as far as most species go) in our capacity to alter our immediate surroundings by a significant degree to suit our needs. But that doesn't make our nature destructive.
I'm all for embracing some of the themes of certain fiction tales, like Bloodborne's implication that the beasts were just the hidden "true nature" inside of ourselves, as opposed to an outside plague "tainting" us. But that's still just fiction. It's also still a message that we are little more than another one of the creatures around us, not somehow special or exceptional. Nor some kind of unique and all-destructive entity. I think passion for post-apocalyptic storytelling and fixating on the warlike nature of humanity has just gone too far with some sorts. Yes, we are WARLIKE, but that just means we are far too eager to kill each other. Each other, not our planet.
Good lord. I went back to bed and came back to this. I ain't no misanthrope. I am very much against the idea that humans are innately selfish, greedy, and cruel. I am compassionate about other people in general. Being critical and using a few negative premodifiers to condemn things that /have happened/ does not invalidate the occurrences of those said things or the point made any further than it puts a wanky opinionated slant to them. I consider it naive to treat our collective historical actions as admissible, without consequence or impact, as only a shrug of a shoulders and "well, you can't be negative about it!", because it is simply realistic to acknowledge the long term effects and notice that, hey, we seem to be the species that's doing most of this except for earthquakes, immigrants cause them. Unless you want to pretend that animals aren't tortured and killed on a grand industrial scale, that pollution hasn't caused huge climate changes, that we have hunted incredibly rare species to extinction in the name of lunch, that we are (helping in) shaving down the bee population which is REALLY going to make the poop hit the fan, cutting down huge rainforests (trees take a long time to grow and those counter-measures are not effective or widespread enough to offset the ongoing deforestation), etc. Unless you honestly deny the points I made about both the animal/food industry and what we are doing to the resources we need most.
Because there is nothing positive about those things whatsoever. Except maybe getting your new table and chairs. And intention is irrelevant. The number of times governments are advised Not To Do The (environment-related) Thing and then they Do The Thing in the name of profit or good old fashioned values or a blowjob from the missus is huge. Just recently they're putting in pesticides that cause entire colonies of bees to drop dead, or so the newspapers/reports are saying, though considering the diseases going around that's just going to speed up the dwindling of their numbers. And after a whole century of science learning that what we are doing is very very bad for the environment and as a result us too, we still don't catch on. Individually, many still don't recycle or eat from renewable animal sources (the huge amount of water and land needed for cows, etc), and on the larger scale big companies, for example, often engage in shitty waste management. And, of course, general fumes from various manufacturing processes. The reasons for this may at times be legitimate but largely it's because it's simply not profitable and safe to drop everything and overhaul your system, or place a mini basketball hoop over your recycling bin. But again, in the long run, that's no good excuse, as at this point it's gone far further than suiting needs and will kick us up the ass harder than Ted kicked Len.
Going by history, to the Earth, we as a species are something of a plague in the longer run. We destroy, be burn, and when we do a shoddy repair job we expect a cookie and a round of applause. As Walkpknut pointed out, after a long, loooooong time, Earth would likely 'rebalance' itself, but there's only so much 'balancing' you can do if the scales are damaged. That doesn't mean I 'hate' humanity or people in general. I'm pretty sure most people are capable of recognising unpleasant but demonstrably true things without refusing to ever speak to another human/generally hatefucking everyone with their eyes. It'd also be hypocritical considering that I probably do plenty of things that harm the environment, though I try to inform myself about such things. If you look at the world through rose-tinted glasses it's much harder to spot the red. Which is why, in the cold war, they always wore blue shades. I'm quite the proponent for, y'know, assisting those who lack the means to survive themselves, general care for social issues, and sometimes I even go outside and talk to other humans if I'm drunk enough.
Honestly, for someone who is usually so erudite, you are relying on ridiculous notions of misanthropy and equating insulting people on forums with the intent to cause a flamewar, with pointing out the things we have done in a way that condemns them, as though I'm not neutral and complacent towards things that are demonstrably causing a LOT of damage.
You know what the really sad thing is? We would not even have to change THAT much to make a reall difference. It would be already enough if we sacrifice a little comfort in our homes and life. That would already go a long way. But it seems we are simply unwilling to change. I mean eating a bit less meat, not runing the air conditioner all the time, more support for efficient technology. And there are many industries that are in serious need of reforms and technology.
Yeah, and that's why nature has no chance. Sadly :/
It simply can't compete with profit. But I am not trying to attack you or anyone. I am at least glad that they make a slow but steady return to Germany! And I think the famers and livestock holders simply have to learn to co-exist with them. Albeit the government really has to support them in some way. At least that is what I believe. We have spend 100 of years to kill those animals, now we can do something to support them.
I think soon enough there will be more Lions in captivity compared to the numbers which roam freely trough the wild. The Axolotl might be already extinct. It seems the only one that still exist are held in aquarium.
Now Lions, Tigers, Axolotls and the like have a bit luck as they are seen as intersting and/or cute. But most animals don't have that luxury. Species dissapear all the time and they will continue to dissapear. With or without our help. Nature is doing it for million of years. But I don't see why we have to support this actively. And most of the time for rather mundane reasons.
I can only agree with you. Just to mention the shit our species is doing isn't misanthropic. It's stating merely facts. And another fact is that we have to change a lot of our habbits if we still want to enjoy the plant how it's current form and that we have to stop to waste so many resources. There are to many changes that can't be ignored. And I am not talking only about the climate. The big garbage trail in the Ocean, the overfishing, the industry with it's damage to the landscape. One has only to look at China to get a glimpse of the effects. No one can really believe that this is a good evolution. But they are not the only ones. It happens also in Russia (a lot), Africa and the US and Europe.
Of course the destructive tendencies of mankind are a negative force in the world. That is my point. We have done harm to our planet. Stating that isn't misanthropic. Do you need to look up the word?
Here is just one example of not only damaging the environment but killing wildlife that would be safe otherwise. But I guess we do so much good it outweighs the bad somehow? That makes these events somehow null and void?
I won't bother pulling up the dozens of articles I have seen in the past few months. But I guess the California drought isn't partly to blame on the alteration of the natural habitat in California. No sir. We didn't do that. Not to mention the fact that we could be using hemp to alleviate our deforestation problem.
So altering the surroundings to fit man made needs to the detriment of everything else isn't destructive? Whenever we dump oil into the ocean that is not destructive? I'm sure the the people getting rich were just torn up about the devastating consequences from the BP oil spill
Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it fiction. Now you basically imply thinking this way is some sort of neurotic fixation due to post apocalyptic fiction, not based on the abundance of information in every format imaginable. Pretentiousness oozes out of every one of your posts, only worsened in part by your massive signature that fills half the thread with an ego twice the size to boot.
It really surprizes me honestly to still see people that believe thoes man made problems are not coming back at us at some point. And in a very serious fashion. It sounds negative? I hope it does. Because it fucking is ...
I mean even if you don't believe in global warming or the climate change, there can be NO doubt that many of our industries particularly on the size they operate today have a very destructive nature on an almost global level. I mean for fucks sake, China has turned their yellow river into a red one ...
We as a species are one of THE most desttructive forces this planet has seen in a long time. There can't be even a discussion about that anymore.
I mean just a quick google search reveals that.
Those are the places in need of serious changes. I don't have the illusion that the industries around it will dissapear tomorrow, people do need those and it is about profit. But already a serious modernisation and use of new, cleaner and more importantly saver technology would help a lot. I think there was a study saying that Germany could lower its carbon dioxide by 30% or so already just by modernisation and replacing decade old instalations. Nothing more. And we can directly apply that to nations that still use technology from the 1970s and 80s.
Do we have what it takes to change our behaviour? It's still not to late.
You are confusing self interest with something negative. You would be just as confused if you were to say "Ice cream is delicious, dirty, painful, and repulsive".
Incidentally, I see "you're poopy posts" praising is still alive and well. Nothing changes, so long as people are unwilling to acknowledge what needs to change.
Again, your logic is circular. It's only destructive because you say so. As for the question you posed, I could redirect that question right back at you. Your choice in label is a case of "tomato tomato". I see the construction of a house as a creative process. You see it as a destructive process. Two sides to the same coin. You mine stone for use in creating concrete, you could argue that the mines are "destructive to mountains". I would argue that the structural possibilities granted by the material harvest is a work of creation. Both things happen, but you fixate on the negative, I observe the positive benefit. Cutting down the trees to make the home atop the concrete foundation could be construed as destructive. But the planting of those trees to harvest them to begin with could be construed as positive and resource conserving for the sake of creation. Two sides to every coin. But I choose no to exaggerate one side.
To use an example that works in your favor, we can extrapolate that same argument towards dams. The creation of a dam, the destruction of a river. It certainly sounds much more destructive than it does constructive, and dams are a favorite target of environmentalists. Still, it doesn't escape the "tomato tomato" rule. Perception does not rule.
I don't even KNOW what you're getting on about in this particular rant.
For starters, NO, we are NOT responsible for the desert we live in BEING A DESERT. If you move away from a habitat where bovines are a common inhabitant of your surroundings, and you leave to a habitat where bovines do not naturally graze, and you COMPLAIN that your new home (which you artificially changed by moving) doesn't have any beef, that is NOT a fault of your surroundings, that is a fault of your CHOICE in your surroundings.
People love living in California because of their fondness for warm weather and sandy beaches. Yes, there are more reasons than that, but if we trace back the origins of large settlements, these simple environmental considerations were at the heart of such migrations. So when people move from a coast that sees severely cold winters and rains on very regular bases, and they move to a coast with incredibly mild winters and very sparse rainfall, ANY complaints on droughts are complaints of the environment ITSELF. Its natural state. Transplanting that to somehow be due to our own machinations... Like I said already, it is EXCEEDINGLY arrogant to immediately presume that if there is a resource shortage, it's immediately a man-made problem. There's so little gold because there's so little gold. California is in a drought (and it's BEEN in a drought for DECADES) because it's CALIFORNIA!
Secondly, WHAT does that even have to do with hemp? To begin with, are you somehow forgetting that I'M one of the more outspoken proponents for re-embracing a hemp-based textile industry? Beyond that, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CALIFORNIA BEING A DESERT? Seriously, I cannot follow the gaps in logic with this statement. All I see is "I'm grabbing as many disparate comments as I can to thread together a negative theme so I can draw attention to this negativity of my own creation." I would love nothing more than to understand how that is NOT what you're doing.
I am appalled by your willingness of commit the sin of the strawman to continue this lunacy.
WHAT aspect of "dumping oil in our oceans" is conducive to shaping our surroundings to our benefit? Hmm? Finding yourself in a grove, then flattening some ground while you cut down a few trees and arrange them in such a way as to provide yourself shelter is a FAR cry from burning the forest to the ground. Oil spills are not some act of spite, they're accidents... Acts of negligence. Commenting on a dependency for petroleum-based fuel sources as opposed to a replenishable ethanol-based fuel (not that the latter isn't without its major consequences) and the accidents that befall that dependency is TOTALLY tangential to the argument of environment-shaping to the benefit of the species. You WOULD be on track if you were likening a bird snapping twigs and making nests being "destructive"... except that doesn't paint an evil picture of harm to everything around the bird, so naturally you won't do it.
You resorted to some ass pull because it served your purposes. And that disgusts me.
I love crows because, of all birds, they exhibit the most in common with us. They communicate with each other, learn from observing, and teach their subsequent generations what they've learned. Also, they're jet black. But that's just an aesthetic I think looks good. Back to their qualities... They see through facades. They alter their surroundings and craft tools for their use. I love them. But are crows some kind of plague on the world? Well farmers CERTAINLY would think so. Some city people really can't stand them, either, although that disdain is totally lost on me. I just don't get it. They are beautiful creatures, to me. You might live in communities like mine where they periodically arrive in their murders- also, BADASS term used to refer to their flock -and squawk in large numbers in both discord and unison, and you might really, really dislike that. I don't, but that's PREFERENCE.
Does PREFERENCE make a thing a definitive plague or savior? No. It's a perception. It's relative. Looking at human behaviors and perceiving them as detrimental does not make them detrimental.
You're avoiding the all important "two sides of every coin" that's staring you in the face about this whole affair. The very fact that I perceive environmental shaping as creative, and that you perceive it as destructive. The FACT of the matter is that both facets are integral to the whole of the process. But does that make it one or the other? THAT... is all in the eye of the beholder.
No, I imply a tiny facet of a MUCH larger observation, which I just didn't wanna go into. The excessive-simplification of the observation being all-too-easily summed up as "all things have a cause and effect". For example, LIKING post apocalyptic themes not necessarily the cause, but the effect of a particular mindset which lends itself towards a perception of.... etc etc. Again, I chose not to get into the nitty gritty of that because it's so fucking tedious. However, saying what I was doing is the other way around is merely putting the cart before the horse.
I consider extreme selfishness, excessive greed (which by definition is excessive), and cruelty to be negative things, yes. Self interest is not necessarily directly referring to greed, selfishness etc unless you're also accounting for extremes in a discussion. Survival instinct is not synonymous with hoarding money and exploiting workers. I should probably have clarified, sorry.
And yet at the same time I am capable of enjoying the taste of ice-cream all the while being aware of what has (likely) gone into it, though I wouldn't necessarily use those words to describe what issues I might have with the dairy industry (that and it's basically cold, semi-solid juice squeezed from a cow's tits, some people probably find that gross, too)/ I am able to engage in selfishness just as anybody else is. I eat eggs but I don't hate myself for eating them. The only difference is that, unlike some, I am able to get past cognitive dissonance and simply avoid doing such things as much as possible/I desire, which is not very much Again, being critical of something's demonstrably negative impact/behaviour is not the equivalent of hating it, nor is applying a moral stance to such criticism a widespread hatred of the thing criticized, as humanity has been the cause of many wonderful things, too. We just happen to bite the planet that feeds a lot.
(is the poopy post thing aimed at me? I don't recall calling you that but I'm an asshole sometimes (sorry if so))
It's not a question of extremes, it's a question of misuse of labels. Parasitism is not the same as self-interest. They don't have a relationship of gradient, they have a relationship of tangentiality. Parasitism is the act of draining by causing harm to another party. Greed, a particular color of self-interest, is a matter of being interested in your own benefit. "Fuck the consequences" is NOT to be confused with greed, or any gradient of self-interest, because that's not very beneficial to yourself if you don't wish to pay heed to what may come around to bite you in the ass.
People are too eager to condemn greed as just another hot-button bad word because they've been taught to. It's a cultural problem. To suggest that the problem can be undone overnight would be like suggesting that the next American President will be voted into office ENTIRELY thanks to the whole nation being educated on their choices and recognized that their choice is, rationally and in total absence of hype and persuasion, THE definitive right choice. Meaning, it's physically possible, but highly, HIGHLY unlikely. At best, it will take generations while moving in that direction before we see that happen.
This is a smaller commentary regarding a much larger topic that you're most likely unaware of. Suffice it to say, Toront and I have argued about it many times, and his stance has been, as best as I can do it justice without putting words in his mouth, "You take it too seriously". My stance is that it IS a problem, and providing the opportunity to exercise the problem merely increases the problem. The choice in label I gave to it was a deliberate infantisizing of words to demonstrate the immaturity of the practice. You are the recipient of the practice, in this particular instance, so you don't need to worry about it. If, however, you begin to indulge in it in the future, I may draw your attention to the practice, and why I condemn it so sincerely.
Yeah, good point on the semantics, though I'd say greed can and does sometimes contribute to a larger social and economic imbalance, but that's a whole other discussion. I don't condone that 'one sudden solution' attitude either.
I don't quite follow - is the practice/problem you're talking about incorrect use of language?
Well lets get this over with. Parts of your post I will ignore since you are misconstruing the brief words I said on our detrimental effect on the world, which is purely a reply directed at you about Moosick.
The hemp comment is not related to California. Put two and two together. We were speaking of mans impact on the world, not just about California. In your effort to push your agenda about California's drought you imply that the argument is due to ranting and raving about imaginary problems, or purely due to a cynical outlook on the world. California has bright green lawns because people have used up vast quantities of water. Yes, I know it's a fucking desert Snap. You don't have to drive that home any farther. Besides the fact that California isn't that big of deal. It is only a small part of the big picture.
I didn't say oil spills were beneficial. How the fuck can you conceive that I would think that? The act of drilling for oil is beneficial to a culture that thrives on oil. The bolded part is exactly what I'm talking about. Negligence can be destructive. You seem to focus on all the good things, but dismiss any notion that we have altered the planet in harmful ways to suit our purposes. You sound kinda like this
Sorry about that oil spill, but it's all about progress folks. Those fish out there haven't been killed. They just sacrificed their lives for the greater good which is filling our pockets with those dollar bills, ya'll.
That's twice now that you've commented that I'm rushing to push an agenda or make a point. I'm doing neither. Not rushing nor pushing an agenda. Unless you see fit to arguing for the sake of rationality for rationality's sake as my agenda, then perhaps I might concede that point. But on the half of rushing... again, just no. Am I quick? Well, I would argue "Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel nooooooooooooooo"! I feel my particular difficulties with reading, coupled with my "edit, re-edit, edit some more" nitpicky tendencies are VERY time consuming. So I spend an abundance of time on my replies, quite the opposite of rushing them out. If nothing else, think of it like sobering up; the moment of making a bad drunken decision losing its luster as you come to your senses. That is to say, assuming I AM rushing in to make my points too quickly, the time taken to construct them would be the "sobering up" period, wherein if I find I'm stepped into something, I need to back the fuck out, before I've committed to something I don't wanna be associated with. No such thing has happened. Granted, that means some people, whose values clash with mine, find the things I say worth arguing over, finding upsetting, or what have you (I'm not them, I can't suppose to know exactly how they feel about my words). But that's not the same as me throwing caution to the wind in my haste. I don't do that, however it may perhaps appear.
Secondly, I'm not talking about imaginary problems. I'm talking about problems that aren't what people make them out to be. We ARE in a drought. The drought is real. What's not real is that it's sudden and new. What's equally not real is that we're all to blame. Those aren't imaginary problems as much as they are misunderstandings, or misappropriations of information to where it doesn't belong. My example of bovine populations was referring to that fact: It IS a problem if you don't have beef and you want/need it. Beef being my analogy for water. The problem is real, but the reasons given are not right.
Yes, that was my point, entirely. You went straight from the subject of man altering his surroundings as not being entirely beneficial, to contrast with my comments that I hold it to BE beneficial, and immediately transitioned to oil spills. I CAN SEE that you weren't alluding to them at all being beneficial. The problem is that it had nothing to do with the matter at hand. Oil spills are NOT altering our environment, they're oil spills. For example, burning down a forest because your camp fire went out of control. You didn't burn down the forest to shape your surroundings, but you did build a camp as an effort to make your immediate surroundings more hospitable. A critical and massive error is not the same as the effort that resulted in the error. The error is just the error. You do not go into a process with the goal to fail, you go into a process with the goal of success. e.g. We shape our surroundings to fit our personal (and ever-changing) needs with the explicit goal of meeting those needs, and benefiting us in the long run. Failure is NOT part of that mission statement. Failure is failure.
If your argument was purely that we err, then I would have absolutely no problem with it. But you were stating that this is our NATURE... that it's entirely subject to our aims and inextricably bound to one another.
Also that link doesn't seem to work, so whatever insulting image or video clip I SUSPECT you may have dug up just to try to run the point home, I cannot view.
But as per your words, specifically, no I think quite to the opposite of what you suggest. When people are ranting and raving about nothing but how evil we all are and they use descriptors like "plague" when explaining their feelings about their fellow man, the PROPER response to contradict this is to exemplify the positives. That doesn't mean I am avoiding the negatives, that just means they're irrelevant to the point. Like I said, if the comments were "we err", I'd have no objections. But they weren't, they were fixating on this self-loathing idea that we are a blight on the Earth, and that is pure and simply wrong. Finding us to somehow be an exception when it comes to life forms in our biosphere is just lunacy. Going so far as to say our very nature and our ONLY contributions have been entirely for the negative is just crippled with hatred of one's common man. Pointing out that they're wrong by showcasing the other side of the coin they're happily ignoring doesn't mean all I see is that side. That was my ENTIRE point about the tomato tomato / two sides to every coin analogies.
I DO dismiss the very notion of misanthropic ideas, because the mindset itself is a fundamentally flawed, hypocritical, arrogant outlook, and I find absolutely no value to it in the slightest. I'm not as critical towards optimism, but I do not subscribe to it, either, contrary to your assertions that all I'm doing is looking on the bright side. I am most certainly not.
One of my favorite quickie phrases is, "Optimists are naive fools. Pessimists are short-sighted cynics. I don't like either of them."