The Glade 4.0

Where do human beings derive the right to exploit ther world around them to the detriment of all people?

My current thought is related to mountaintop removal mining. I have just passed through the mountain west, and as far as I am concerned, private corporations shouldn't be allowed anywhere near those mountains, or any mountains for that matter. They are absolutely *stunning* to look at.

Why do we have the right to slash, burn, hunt, fish, and pollute our planet and eco system to hell and back? We have wiped out entire species for sport. We have destroyed endless miles of rainforest in the name of profit. We have dislodged indigenous people, flora, fauna - for what? Greed?

Where does a man get the right to burn the world around him in order to line his pockets?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The same place you get your right to eat another animal or develope technology or a billion other things. Because nature gave ... some... of us a bigger brain than the animals, so we get to be at the top of the food chain.

I still think commics could totally help with this debate... "With great power, comes great responsibilities". Unfortunately humans have problems remembering that phrase when there's money involved.

I don't see how our natural adaptation grants us the right to burn the rest of the planet down around our ears for money. If anything, it means we have less of an excuse for not coming to a natural equilibrium with the world around us, like most other mammals manage to pull off *without* a giant brain.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Even when you have a point, you still resort to logical fallacies.



This is either a non-sequitor or begging the question. First, define certain types of activity and then prove how it is "exploitation to the detriment of all people." Either that, or you must admit that human beings, by physically existing, impact the world to the detriment of something else in this world as a necessary and unavoidable consequence.



So? I like to look at mountains too. I love to go hiking in nature. In fact, I'm pretty eco-friendly in the sum of my activities. I don't use a lot of disposable material resources or create a huge demand for electricity, and the place where I work is primarily zero emissions and we produce over 2300 megawatts of electricity on average, enough for a couple million homes. The only emissions we create are of secondary nature: vehicles moving in, the emissions used in to create the raw materials and parts for the plant, etc.

None of that establishes any reason for me of why me liking the mountains or outdoors should be made into law.



Appeal to emotion. Regardless if what you say is true, you don't establish specifically why it's bad (I'm not saying it isn't bad, but you haven't established that). And what the hell is an "indigenous" person? Aren't all people originated from one area? If so, that means most of the world isn't indigenous, even those that are "primitive".



Another appeal to emotion and non-sequitor or begging the question. Additionally, it's an non-sequitor because you say "burning the world". What does that even mean? What is burning? Are you talking about a oxidation reduction decomposition reaction specifically? Which reactions? Why are they bad? How do they result directly from "lining man's pockets"? Why are they specific reactions carried out, and the consequences thereof, bad and why is doing them to "line the pockets of man" bad?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Depends on your definition of right, since right is a human concept, hence what we believe are our rights is defined by us and not animals or the planet.
If you want to talk about 'natural rights' (or laws) then the survival of the fittest, the food chain, darwin's theory of evolution comes into play. If these rights are what you're talking about, then we're still up there because evolution gave us the right to own the world. (alternatively there could be dolphin overlords, if they got there first).

Of course your argument of emotional appeal I do agree with, and we should know better, however these things you're talking about do not have rights and are reliant on our moral/scientific judgement to better our own out look. (ie feel better or to preserve for the future)

If you're a religious type, at least...

There's no moral imperative to preserve any natural equilibrium, We don't need any excuse for that,

Where does anyone get the right to stop people from hunting, burning, cutting trees, etc. to the detriment of the progress of all people? So what if we've wiped out species?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This typically, and more so from people with Monte's perspective, relates to the fallacy of the "noble savage". They hold a heavily romanticized view of the relationship between "native" groups and the environment and use that as the basis of their arguments, completely ignoring that which undermines their position, to include the reality of the conditions.

That's what life does. We're just better at it than most species. Note, though, that we have more of a conscience about it than any other species, too...no other creature ever notices their place in the ecosystem. They just do what they can to survive and thrive. Darwinian natural selection is at work.

I just fear that like bacteria in a petrie dish culture, we will continue our mindless expansion until there is nothing left for us to consume, and the die-off will be the most horrific event in human history.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't know Talya. We have capabilities, to prevent that die off, that no other species has ever had.

Which leads me to Monty. Monty, in order to reach that equilibrium that you are advocating for humans, we would need to get rid of billions of people. Most of the world population.

The human population is WAY past what is sustainable in a natural equilibrium. We are able to sustain our population because we have, in part, tamed mother nature. She still rises up and gives us a smack every now and then, but we are able to withstand disasters easily that would have decimated populations of early humans. Being at equilibrium with nature, means being vulnerable.

Back to Talya. We are a LONG way from our current capabilities at sustaining our population, even with few major changes. When you add in changes that we could make (if we had to) that wouldn't involve any new technology, it increases even more. Even without technolgy changes, we could likely support a hundred times our current population. Now it would require major major changes (we'd all have to become vegetarians for one), and if the population increase happened all at once we'd be screwed, but thats not going to happen.

When you add in technology increases, then the sky is the limit really.

I think if people went by a mantra of "what if everyone did it" then we would be far better off.

Don't pick up your dogs poop when you walk em- what if everyone else did it?
Toss litter out your car door- what if everyone else did it?
and so on and so on. I'm a big fan of policing your own backyard. If everyone in the "ghetto" just kept their own backyard clean, it wouldn't be a ghetto anymore. If everyone made sure their own lives were in order before trying to mess with other people- the world would be a better place.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Raphael - I do not believe my initial question - where does man derive the right to exploit the environment - qualifies as any of the fallacies you support.

Yes, my questions about the argument do have an emotional element to them, but I do not believe that disqualifies them. The world is absolutely filled with natural beauty, the value of which is something difficult to measure but easy to observe. I don't understand why *your* company (not yours specifically, but you get my meaning) has the right to burn that forrest or detonate that mountaintop in the name of their profit.

Where is the line? Is there one? Does standing on land make it belong to someone? Does having the means to industrialize grant the right to industrialized? What right does a person have to pollute the air we all share?

As for practial concerns -

Without an environment, there can be no economy. The world cannot sustain an economy based on the idea of unending growth. And yes, we have too many people. However, that doesn't mean we need to toss our hands in the air and give up the effort to come into a better balance with the world around us. Perhaps we should begin bending our minds towards preserving the planet instead of exploiting it for short-term gain.

We all share the planet, It does not belong to Exxon, it belongs to all of us. I simply don't understand why people seem to think the few have the right to **** the place up so badly.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

One could just as easily ask why does your appreciation of beauty give you the right to protect a forest or mountaintop? Why does the abiltiy to regulate give the right to prevent industrialization? Why does sharing the air give the right to prevent, or even limit, pollution?



Ally ou're doing is tossing aroung vagaries. What does "**** it up so badly" mean? Why is Exxon to blame? They're just providing what everyone wants.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Exxon is simply one example. Plenty of companies exploit our environment for their own gain. We all share this world. Just because Exxon has the means to extract oil doesn't mean we all don't have a say in how that oil is made, and the impact their business has on the world we all share.

Where do people derive the right to **** up the planet? Where do we derive the right to dump toxins in our shared water supplies, pump toxins into our shared air, or bury toxins in our shared soil?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Ad nauseam fallacy much?

It's obvious our civilization doesn't really want the most eco-friendly solutions. If it did, the demand for such products would mean companies would create them. Because people don't really want them, they don't exist. People only want them without having to pay for them, but that is unlikely to happen.

In fact, you yourself have most certainly contributed to this alleged destruction of our environment. Has everything you ever purchased ever been the most clean alternative possible? Have you ever refused to purchase a certain type of product if no "greenly produced" choice is available?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

The world doesn't actually turn on supply and demand. Power, and the exercise of power, has a lot to do about it. Yes, we want our lights to turn on and our computers to work and our cars to go fast. However, we also want our world to be pretty and our children to have a good environment to live in. We want clean air, clean water, clean soil, and natural beauty.

My impact is as good as I can get it to be at present. No, I don't do everything in my power to reduce my environmental impact. However, I'm not advocating for anything remotely resembling zero impact.

I am, however, advocating for sensible regulation of industry that allows for both economic growth and a sustainable, thriving environment.

That means that private companies don't just get to go in and blow up whatever the **** they want to blow up in the name of their bottom line. That means they have an obligation to the public in terms of the effect they have on the world we all share, including the effect they have on the world's natural beauty and resources.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

We're not talking about the world turning on supply and demand, we're talking about the economy. And the economy supplies the products we use every day; the earth just provides the materials. The market has a solution; it's people that don't want to be green. Being green costs more money. If it was free, companies would just do it.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Correct. It's not free. However, it's also necessary. Again, without an environment, there can be no economy. And unsustainablility leads to economic damage down the road. The few may profit in the short term, and then we all foot the bill in the end.

That's why the market must be regulated. Sometimes, what we want and what we need are two different things.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

So substantiate those claims in your first sentence. I don't have the answer to them being "right" or "wrong". Since you have yet to do so, your second sentence is a non-sequitor.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

If I'm starving and there is the last of a species sitting next to me, I'll let you know how it tastes.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Obviously we all have a say, but a lot of that "we" want Exxon to be strong and profitable. Exxon employs a lot of people and makes an essential product. IT isn't a matter of "Exxon vs. the rest of us" (to continue with that example).

Or, to put it another way, there is no "we all" that's opposed to Exxon. That portion of "we all" that think natural beauty or whatever is important is not automatically entitled to have its viewpoint enforced on Exxon or on the part of "all of us" that think what they do is necessary and important and don't want to pay outrageous amounts for it because of someone's sentimentality.



Where do people get the right to tell others they can't do those things? How is that "**** up the planet" at all? It's simply an arbitrary proclaimation that one state is better than another.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I love how self-righteously and eagerly Monte takes up the mantle of "he who knows what 'we' NEED."

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

On a related note, ammo production is a growth industry due to demand from private citizens.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

On another related note, it's kangaroo open season right now.

We have hunters with silencers crawling around our township killing deer. They are 68 deer per square mile when the survivable rate is 6. Little bit over populated. The meat is being donated to food shelters.

People are still upset.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville