eXpat wrote:OilFinder2 wrote:It is amazing the depths of tree-hugger thinking. They would deliberately let millions - even billions - of people die of starvation to save an ecosystem which will far outlast humans anyway. fucking hell. FUCKING TROLL
Care to be one who voluntarily lets himself starve to death to save the cerrado?
Defending what cannot be defended. So basic respect for the planet were we live is tree-hugger thinking for you? everything and anything is there for the sole purpose to move your SUV? How can any ecosystem outlast humans if they are intent in chopping it down? What about restraining the numbers of an species (ours) that is using natural resources in an unsustainable way and damaging in the process the equilibrium of the planet that we live in, in an already irreversible manner?. You attack my position as one that would let billions of people die of starvation, tell me, what is the value of yours, that would let humand increase numbers till no virgin land remains, no wild fauna, but pets or cattle?. What about the resources to sustain all that? and why? why is better that we reproduce like a cancer in this planet, what is the virtue of that? Do you jerk off thinking that one day the all the planet could be like Japan or China crowded with people? Is that big your craving for soylent green? Moron.
eXpat, do you have any doubt that tropical savanahs will exist a million years from now? I don't. At one point some 300 million years ago, almost the entire planet was covered in a giant ice age. If the planet can recover from that, it can easily recover from whatever humans do to it in the brief time we are here. Contrary to your belief, not even the most starry-eyed cornucopian believes humans will be around forever. Nor do we believe Yellowstone should be paved over with subdivisions and the entire Amazon replaced with Hong Kong and a tropical Iowa. Your argument amounts to
reducio ad absurdum. I could just as easily accuse *you* of being a self-hating human who would just love for all humans to go extinct ASAP so that nature could be restored ASAP. In that case, you can start at home and head for the nearest cliff. Or, if you don't want the cerrado to be turned into soybean fields, you can start at home there too, and STOP EATING. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and since I don't see you eagerly starving yourself to death and jumping off cliffs, I will assume you're not a self-hating human, and perhaps you might actually like humans. If that's the case, you cannot expect anyone else to voluntarily starve themselves to death and jump off cliffs any more than you would. So we're back to square one: If you yourself aren't willing to voluntarily starve to death or jump off cliffs to save the planet, and since you don't expect anyone else to do the same, how do you expect to feed all the people who have the same needs as you do?
This is the tree-hugger dilemma: they don't really HAVE a solution for this. If you tell them there are bountiful amounts of usable farmland in Russia and Brazil, they complain that this will enable the feeding of too many people at the expense of nature. But when you tell them the alternative is to let them all starve, they themselves aren't eager to be one of those willing to starve, so why would anyone else do so? Is it OK for you to eat, but not anyone else? What hypocricy!