Not2BSubjugated
Callous Individualist
This is one of the major problems with political arguments: the straw men. In this case, the people firing those off are the dems/environmentalists. The implied argument you folks seem to be making is, "If you don't agree with everything my party says about the environment then the alternative is that you want to destroy the environment to satiate your own greed." I think it's safe to say that nobody here's quite stupid enough to believe that we can rape our environment and still be all good, so let's stop accusing people of arguments they're not making.
If you honestly think that -any- environmental deregulation from the point at which we're at is a deregulation that's going to destroy the planet, I have 3 words for you. Endangered Species Act. This is a perfect example of well-meaning environmentalism that really doesn't serve any practical purpose. It's only conceivable purpose is to satiate the morality of those who believe that any species perishing from the planet as a result of man's actions is an unforgivable evil. I wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment. It's unfortunate, granted, and I don't -want- to see species going extinct, but it's an inevitable result of evolution. As superior species evolve, inferior species are often doomed to obsolescence and, eventually, extinction.
My base point is essentially this: PRACTICALITY demands that we do what we can to sustain our environment insofar as is necessary to sustain our own existence. Anything above and beyond that is no longer PRACTICALITY, but a matter of MORALITY. Lemme let you folks in on a little secret. . . . Just because your moral hierarchy isn't topped by a deity doesn't make it any less subjective than a religion. I don't worship Gaia. She and I simply live in the same neighborhood, so I try not to go out of my way to fuck with her.
If you honestly think that -any- environmental deregulation from the point at which we're at is a deregulation that's going to destroy the planet, I have 3 words for you. Endangered Species Act. This is a perfect example of well-meaning environmentalism that really doesn't serve any practical purpose. It's only conceivable purpose is to satiate the morality of those who believe that any species perishing from the planet as a result of man's actions is an unforgivable evil. I wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment. It's unfortunate, granted, and I don't -want- to see species going extinct, but it's an inevitable result of evolution. As superior species evolve, inferior species are often doomed to obsolescence and, eventually, extinction.
My base point is essentially this: PRACTICALITY demands that we do what we can to sustain our environment insofar as is necessary to sustain our own existence. Anything above and beyond that is no longer PRACTICALITY, but a matter of MORALITY. Lemme let you folks in on a little secret. . . . Just because your moral hierarchy isn't topped by a deity doesn't make it any less subjective than a religion. I don't worship Gaia. She and I simply live in the same neighborhood, so I try not to go out of my way to fuck with her.