although I do agree with much of the P&T episode, the proposal is that government investigators get to assess the environmental impact of a policy as opposed to scientists
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
The problem on the whole is apparently that there (of course) aren't really enough people to assess the situations, so there are often blanket decisions made, which don't help any animals and hurt people. I suppose making them at least not necessary scientists would increase the amount of people to assess a situation, even though it would decrease the knowledge used for the task.
On the whole I think animals suck anyways, though.
indeed, I personally believe there should be a rational reason aside from simple biodiversity to protect the habitat of an animal, and that is obviously a decision that science can inform, but not make.
However, when it comes to actual measures of impact, it just seems more likely that political rather than factual motives will be at work if the government is allowed to assess for itself (I have no idea how it works now anyways, and I'm sure the gvt still gets to make the decisions). Even NASA scientists have said they have faced political pressure during previous administrations (not just Bush). Meh, not that I have any real point, just science should be done by scientists and should not be politically motivated, and while im at it I'm going to solve world hunger and dance on a rainbow.
In stark contrast to Bardock's position, I'm a strong proponent of human-nature harmonization. I don't think everything should be about human progress and f*** nature on the way there. We know better as a species. To go against our nice scientific data on best practices for expansion and growth is ignorant.
I don't want to live in huts in the amazon, but I don't want to destroy an environment so an entire city can go up.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Oh, well, I interpreted your "To go against our nice scientific data on best practices for expansion and growth is ignorant." as meaning just that. But fair enough, I will qualify my statement to say "I am a proponent of human-nature harmonization due to the many advantages for humanity". And still, your position is not contrary to mine, your reasons might be.
"If no human gets or will get harmed in the process of destroying every animal, plant and other living thing on this earth...it is absolutely alright."
..
Is what I am in stark contrast to. I'm pretty damned sure there is a nice harmonious way to expand and develop without having to destroy teh animalz and evironmentz.
Also, you're allowed to change your position on your environmental policy anytime you want to. If you no longer hold the same position as you did from what I quoted, that's fine. I'm not going to accuse you of being a flip flopper...that's reserved for elected officials and those running for office.
You don't correct my ellipsis. (I was remotely accessing someone's computer at the time and I was fixing a Java RE problem...forgive my hurried reply?)
Just so you know, your post earlier in this thread reminded me of the previous conversation we had that I quoted. You said:
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Yeah, always smart to make yourself the slave of a government in order to avoid potential servitute.
Nah, there'd be multiple means, we just rely too much on the government, which then lets itself be bought by the corporations and actually gives them the power they shouldn't have and that so many people were afraid of them getting. Irony is a weird thing, isn't it.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Actually, that comment didn't really fit in with what I said earlier. What I said earlier was a declaration of indifference, while that latter comment was in a negative tone.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 14th, 2008 11:29 PM
(I was remotely accessing someone's computer at the time and I was fixing a Java RE problem...forgive my hurried reply?)
