Shrub wants to gut Endangered Species Act
Shrub wants to gut Endangered Species Act
Originally posted by inimalist
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
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.
I dunno, meh.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
I dunno, meh.
That's not in contrast to my position. I am just against government interference.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not in contrast to my position. I am just against government interference.
I disagree with your above statement.
Originally posted by Bardock42 I care for the environment. I don't care for the unproven hysteria. Someone polluting water should be punished. But the reason for punishment comes from it harming humans, not from it harming the environment. 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. Environmentalism for humanity's sake, that's what we should keep in mind...and many eco-terrorists don't.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree with your above statement.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42
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. 😄
Originally posted by dadudemon
[...]I'm pretty damned sure there is a nice harmonious way to expand and develop without having to destroy teh animalz and evironmentz.
So am I.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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. 😄
Haha, thanks, I will consider it. But I think I am still of the same opinion, it just seems to me you might interpret it a bit different than I do.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So am I.
HEY!
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:
Originally posted by Bardock42
On the whole I think animals suck anyways, though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
HEY!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:
I know, I added it for comedy purposes, as you might or might not now, I just got my girlfriend a dog, which I quite adore.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not in contrast to my position. I am just against government interference.
Government is the only tool we have to keep corporations from turning us all ito a bunch of serfs.
Government is also the only means ro keep corporations from plundering the remaining wilderness areas for financial gain.
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Government is the only tool we have to keep corporations from turning us all ito a bunch of serfs.
Yeah, always smart to make yourself the slave of a government in order to avoid potential servitute.
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Government is also the only means ro keep corporations from plundering the remaining wilderness areas for financial gain.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I know, I added it for comedy purposes, as you might or might not now, I just got my girlfriend a dog, which I quite adore.
Obviously it wasn't intended as your literal opinion, but it does ring nicely with your previous sentiments.
That's why it "reminded" me of our previous conversation.
And I'm not sure about your sincerity about the dog.........that dawgy cost you some money.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously it wasn't intended as your literal opinion, but it does ring nicely with your previous sentiments.That's why it "reminded" me of our previous conversation.
And I'm not sure about your sincerity about the dog.........that dawgy cost you some money.
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.