There's some wisdom in what he says, but I think he fails to see what the effects of billions of tons of toxic waste we've poured into the environment has had over the last 200 years. Yes, the earth has the capacity to heal itself, but we're not giving it a chance and making it worse every day. To me, I see us as fully created by God and the earth is out temporary domain. As such, I feel man has a duty to tend the planet (or at least the parts we can control) carefully and with respect. To be sure, we must have factories and cars... and there is a certain element of pollution involved and the earth is capable of handling a lot, but we've gone overboard. Thousands of miles of ocean areas are now dead and growing larger. Lakes and rivers are also nearly dead of life- or dead altogether. There are certain species of plants & animals we've driven into extinction unnecessarily. And while all this is passing away, I feel that it behooves us to leave our environs in as good of shape as possible for the ones we pass it along to.
Is it just me, or is there a conflict of interest between Evolutionism and saving an endangered species?
Maybe it depends on whether you consider humans part of "nature" or not. Endangered species are mostly (but not entirely) endangered due to our influence. Should we try to mitigate our influence on nature, or are our harmful effects just part of the natural world? Or is maybe our mitigation of our influence also a natural occurrence? barfo
Huh? You got that from the Carlin video??? I watched the whole thing and he never says anything like that. In fact, he's saying just the opposite. He makes fun of the very idea that we could possibly destroy the habitat, and provides a hundred examples of how the earth is stronger and more resilient than we are. We will only be here for a short while. The earth will be here forever. That seems to be his central point (which is delivered very well, by the way).
There's a difference between our habitat and Earth, as a whole. The Earth will still continue to exist, even if its uninhabitable for us. I may have used different words, but I don't believe I'm taking his point out of context. Perhaps I can say it better: The Earth can survive our attitude towards the environment. We can't.
Because nobody has yet to find a way to exploit the moon for money, for political power, or for a snotty sense of moral superiority.
Yes, you are. In fact, I can't believe you're trying to make a pro-environment argument based on Carlins' statements. Didn't you get the part about plastic, and how the earth may actually have needed plastic, and thus is glad that humans invented it??? That goes against the very point you are trying to make: plastic is one of the toxins that is supposedly destroying the environment, and yet Carlin says it's no big deal, and that the environment is strong enough to deal with whatever we puny humans can dish out.
Makes you think. It's an interesting philosophical question, indeed. Or it depends on what is politically important, eh? Should sharks mitigate their influence on eating all the fish they can, even if to the point of extinction and their own extinction in the process? That's the way it is supposed to work.
It depends upon shark politics, I guess. If I were a shark I'd be in favor of not going extinct. barfo
I wonder who gave this thread a 1 star rating to balance out my 5 star rating. I was rating it a 5 because I think the back and forth has been nothing short of fantastic.
You're completely missing the reason why I posted that video. Pay attention to what I wrote before it. I'm arguing that environmentalism can be justified by appealing to human self-interest. Carlin's saying that our current attitude towards the environment will result in our own extinction, not the Earth's. And my point is, how doesn't that peak the concern of any sane, rational individual?
