Obama's bid to save the world

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: neoholographic

Please stop. You are using the oldest and most commonly used tactic-shouting louder than those who challenge their viewpoint.

Right or wrong, we can't sit on our hands any longer. Forget the graphs for a minute; anyone who believes that humanity has not had a detrimental effect on our planet is an idiot. We can argue about facts and figures till the cows swim home but the truth is we are killing our home, and evidence suggests that we are unnaturally accelerating what should be a natural process.

wow, what a completely self-absorbed, self-satisfying, self-deluded pile of dung. If you are so frantic and beside yourself, start a movement to give all you have to save the planet. Surely it's worth doing given that you are so completely horrified and flabbergasted.

The rest of us, well, we will just have to decline the offer to hand over our hard-earned money for ridiculous claptrap.

Something tells me this is not about funding from the biggest criers and gyrators....nope, it's about everybody else digging deep. It always is.

Nevertheless, I like Obama. He's real.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: neoholographic

Please stop. You are using the oldest and most commonly used tactic-shouting louder than those who challenge their viewpoint.

Right or wrong, we can't sit on our hands any longer. Forget the graphs for a minute; anyone who believes that humanity has not had a detrimental effect on our planet is an idiot. We can argue about facts and figures till the cows swim home but the truth is we are killing our home, and evidence suggests that we are unnaturally accelerating what should be a natural process.

Are you dismissing facts? Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but if someone says "we can argue about facts and figures till the cows [come] home, but...," I think that person does not hold facts to be very important. The problem I have with your statement, though, is about the term "unnaturally." What do you mean, exactly? Humans are a natural part of the environment, are we not? By saying we are "unnaturally" accelerating (whatever it is you think we accelerate unnaturally), do you mean through our technology? I, for one, would not want to go back to the days of low technology. I've stayed in places that are what some may term "technologically backwards" and it's not exactly something that is great. Also, I contend the assertion that humanity has only a negative impact on the environment. What is any other species doing to protect the environment? If it weren't for people eating cows, what would the methane levels be?
However, just asking back and forth questions will get us nowhere, so if we assume that the human population is so great that we have a negative impact on the environment, then we have to ask how do we stop the exponential growth of our population? I'd suggest addressing the issue of poverty - as it seems there's a correlation between poverty and the size of the immediate family.