Self-Loathing
Robert Heinlein once wrote:
This article in New Scientist is the most egregious example of the environmentalists' self-hatred it has ever been my displeasure to read. If you can get through the first three paragraphs without feeling bile rise in your throat, you should probably make an appointment with a pyschiatrist.
"In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the 'Naturist' reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of 'Naturists' such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate."
This article in New Scientist is the most egregious example of the environmentalists' self-hatred it has ever been my displeasure to read. If you can get through the first three paragraphs without feeling bile rise in your throat, you should probably make an appointment with a pyschiatrist.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 09:01
3 Comments:
This is the most moronic peace of writing I have seen in some time. Is this person aware that a single volcanic eruption, earthquake, tsunami, meteor strike, etc…. does more to change the earths environment than a thousand years of human activity. Even these events only produce a temporary change. Also, even earth is a temporary thing. Eventually the sun will go nova and planet and everything on it will disappear. There are only three chances any species of this planet has to outlive that event. The first, and most possible, is mankind and his science figuring a way off this rock and taking as many remaining species with us as we can. The second is an alien race who accomplished this feat themselves coming along and giving them a place to live (Fat chance of that happening). And finally a divine being spiriting the select few who “deserve it” away to paradise. Notice that spiriting the animals away is not usually part of the various religions. Therefore you can assume what you wish as to their disposition once the earth is gone.
This person also seems unaware that many species would die off due to natural selection even if mankind were not here. Indeed, not all extinctions had anything to do with mankind. Just ask the next paleontologist you meet. Aside from that I place the needs of my own species above that of others. I would prefer to preserve as many species of animals as we can but I’m not going to loose sleep if one doesn’t make it. Chances are good that mankind will eventually have the technology to recreate any species we have a genetic sample of anyway.
What is amusing and sad at the same time in this article is the ongoing big lie. The global warming issue has yet to be proven in even the most minimal of way. But still we have people talk as if were hard fact. I have read articles by oceanographers that say the sea has a 50-year warming and cooling cycle to account for the slight climate change. Others that are just as compelling showing that sun activity accounts for much of the change. Just Google for the subjects and you should be able to find some information on them. The human induced climate change is the shakiest argument of all. The article I am writing in response to points out that mankind is using maybe 40% of the earths land mass. How much of this land mass is actually producing emissions of any significance. The atmospheric volume and it’s natural filtering and balance systems are most likely more than enough to make man’s contribution to the environment negligible if not totally irrelevant. Think about it this way, what’s more likely:
A: That the giant fusion reactor blasting the planet with radiation of all kinds known as the sun is affecting the environment.
B: Emissions coming from a small percentage of the earths surface of which only an even smaller percentage reaches the atmosphere affects the environment.
I could go on using simple logic to debunk any idea that the article being referenced is useful in anyway but I have to get back to helping support mankind and his quest to save what small bit of this planets inhabitants he can.
The author of the New Scientist article replies:
Oh, come on now. "Self-hatred" has nothing to do with this. It's simply a fact that humans have done more to alter the Earth than any other species. Likewise, there's little doubt that this activity has been bad, on balance, for natural ecosystems. But that doesn't mean we're horrible or anything like that.
If anything, the article argues against the "humans have destroyed the world" point of view. If people vanished tomorrow, the Earth would forget us fairly quickly.
(I’ll go ahead and assume you’re actually Bob Holmes)
The article’s about fantasizing a human mass-extinction, where our rotten corpses are whisked away so nature can undo all the evil things us humans have done. Then it goes on and on about wako theories you environmentalist take as fact. It’s complete self-hatred.
Post a Comment
<< Home