Slashdot Mirror
Seeking the Right Environmental Cause to Support?
Bakajin asks: "I have always been a passive environmentalist. I think that any intelligent person must have concern about our planet and the future of our species upon it and that the Slashdot crowd has many such people. I have increasingly become more concerned about global warming as more and more signs seem to point to its likely effects. I try to make changes in my personal habits but, like many Slashdotters, don't have much time to try and effect larger changes to policy and science. I do however have money. I want to know what organizations Slashdot members think are most worthy of contribution and will give me the most effect for my money, politically or scientifically. This question fits well within Slashdot because it seems to have many members who think critically about the world and their role within it. There also seems to be a willingness to openly express mistrust of the same large corporations that either ignore environmental issues or outright cause them. Please don't turn this into a debate about whether global warming is an actual threat or how bad other environmental issues actually are, but rather about which organizations are the most effective and trustworthy for me to give my hard earned cash."
For the hot Ukrainian chick scratching her ass in the kitchen.
I hate giving money to organizations at all, because 90% of the time I can do whatever it is I want to do myself, giving the money directly to the person I want to receive.
Even the most well run orgs run with a 10-25% administration costs, and I'd rather send directly to the cause I believe. A lot of the organizations have administrative costs of 50-80%.
In short, save your money, and hire some high school kids to pick up litter. At least you know 100% of the money is going to the cause.
PS: The notion Human Caused Global Warming is a scam!!!
This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
Please don't turn this into a debate about whether global warming is an actual threat or how bad other environmental issues actually are
You realize that this is a discussion forum and you're taking one side of a charged debate. What do you think is going to happen?
The opposite of progress is congress
That being said, why not take the money you have and fund your own research? What else is out there causing the problem? Is it really a problem? That sort of thing.
This sig no verb.
For years, many have been trying to erode the Constitution by removing or severly limiting our basic right to bear arms. The geeks' constant fight for free speech and free computing is a relatively recent advance. You can bet that a bunch of gun toting NRA members would stand by your side if any of the constitution rights were watered down. Their cause is of a great concern to them and they already have a large lobby and many voters.
Don't confuse privacy issues with the constitution, however. Nowhere in the Constitution does it gaurantee a right to privacy. If privacy is your cause, then the NRA might not be a good choice.
Yup. The ACLU. You know, the American Civil Liberties Union. They'll ensure proper rules and guidelines are set forth to permit polluters to continue to worsen global warming, kill off rainforests, promote acid rain, etc. Why? Because environmentalists threaten their business models.
No wonder people refer to the ACLU as the American CRIMINAL Liberties Union. They're always opposed to things because it might help catch a crook: Cops using radar is bad because they might catch speeders. Having a tamper proof ID card is bad because identity thieves wont be able to operate not to mention the poor kids that wont be able to get alcohol. Allowing the FBI to look at Internet webpages is bad because a criminal might be dumb enough to post something saying "I shot JFK."
From what I know, these guys were a minor issue-party, but have evolved into a serious, well-rounded party fighting corporate control of the government and the political process. They even had a good candidate for president in 2000, who bothered to answer (some) questions from Slashdot.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Ok. You have a 'bundle of money.' Put it to use. Install a solar energy system in your home. Take out your old inefficient fossil fuel burner, and put in a geothermal heat system. Buy a hybrid car (the new Honda Civic's allow you to have a hybrid that looks normal.) Put in a compost heap and compost your biodegradable trash. Install a water recycler that will clean your waste water to use for watering your lawn, cleaning your car, etc. If you have money left over, Donate it to one of these groups. However taking these steps in your home will ensure that your home has almost zero environmental impact for YEARS to come.
-k
What you'd be best off doing is looking into the organizations you are interested in, and support the ones who's views most closely match your own. That's better than taking our word for it. With most organizations you can obtain information as to the general breakdown of their finances - and I would suggest avoiding groups that don't give that info out.
Another thing is to consider groups that are primarily local to you. Here in MA, for instance, there's an organization called The Trustees of Reservations, a private group that buys, manages, and preserves properties all across the state, and maintains them for public use. That's one I support, though they're not an environmental group first and formost, they mesh pretty well with my interests. There are other groups I support as well, most of which are local/regional in orientation.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Their Action Center is pretty cool. Makes it _very_ easy to shoot out a comment to government and corporate people.
-beme
1971
Environmentalists don't care about "the planet." They care about humans being able to live on the planet.
... the PEOPLE, are fucked!
As George Carlin would say to someone who wants to protect the planet: The planet is fine
"And like that
I give all my environmental money to outdoor clubs that work to preserve trails and wild areas. This is because I am a hiker/backpaker, but also becuase they tend to do tangible things, have benefits reaped by large numbers of people, and are more pragmatic and less political and idealistic.
This way you are preserving wilderness forever - you great, great grandkids will be able to hike on the trails you support. (And by preserving green space, you're helping out with other problems also)
Well, just my 2 cents.
_sig_ is away
If you want to do something good for the environment, but don't have much time to spare, I recommend trying http://www.panda.orghttp://www.panda.org
It's a free service where you can support various campaigns for free with a simple click.
the reason "animal rights activists" don't like the meat industry is that it operates under the "black box" paradigm: here's a shed, you put in food, water, and electricity, and you get out meat and excrement. (Actually, a whole lot of excrement, which we'll get to later). The question is how to turn the most food into the most meat using the least square footage -- and the answer is one that treats animals in less than favorable conditions. But let's not consider whether animals live in painful conditions for the months before they die (who cares), but look only at the environmental impact of this scheme. Viz.
.
14-120 pounds of food, mostly human-edible, go into 1 pound of meat. The rest (what isn't burned away by the animals' metabolism), comes right back out as excrement. Ruminate on these link links for a bit.
If you're concerned not just about environmentalism, but human starvation, then consider that the reason many starving countries can't afford our harvests is that we're feeding them to our animals instead; i.e. becoming highest-bidder for that food. So when you eat a quarter-pound of meat, consider that the reason you're paying $1.28 for it is so you can have purchased the 5-8 pounds of human-edible food used to feed that quarter-pound. And if you weren't paying $1.00 for it, some third-world country would be paying $38 cents. Supply and demand.
For an alternative view (against the argument outlined above), see here
Notice that it says "the world right now is producing more food than people could eat if they had it in front of them. The amount of
food produced is not the problem."
and yet we know that people are starving. Why? Because we're producing more non-meat food than all people in the world can eat, and we're feeding it to our animals. Notice later that the excremenet problem I listed above is turned around and said to be a positive source of manure. If only that were the case...
Of the admittedly small sample of people I've known who seemed to care about the environment and human starvation (can you imagine what it's like to *starve* *to* *death*), none concluded after looking into the meat industry that it is something worth supporting, except for "organic" meats grown really on pastures where only grass grows, and not within today's farming paradigm. The food they consume is not human-consumable, and the methods of rearing are much different, and result in a much smaller environmental impact, especially considering the number of animals / square foot that exist on a large open pasture versus today's typical meat industry.
You say you have money, so if you don't like the idea of giving up meat, you can boy elitist organic meat -- but the 99% of the meat industry (I dont' know what the actual number might be) that most arguments are aimed against is definitely something you do not want to be supporting.
The Political Economy Research Center is a great place for you libertarians to support for free market environmentalism.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Seriously, it sounds cliche, but I've always thought the best environmental support you can offer comes in your own neighborhood. Barring that, find a locally-concerned group that runs an educational nature center. The Sierra Club (and most larger organizations) could use your money, but the narrow focus of a local group gets more for the dollar. Maybe go to a city planning (or county commission meesting) if you want to be more involved. They deal a lot with traffic congestion (and pollution), green space construction, local conservation and noise pollution. Besides, they tend to really care if you show up. If we all took a little more time in our own corner of the world, we'd make a larger difference.
Large, generally-focused organizations (in my case, IMBA, a trail-rights organization for mountain bikers... www.imba.com) can represent your views in the "big picture", and that is important. Pick one, and donate. But, the best thing you can do is get even marginally involved on a local level.
And, to a large degree, Carlin is right. The ecosystem will take care of us if we become too much of a burden.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
Before you get into any environmental issues, you really must read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" trilogy- including the books Ishmael, My Ishmael and the Story of B. Could be thought of as environmental books, but not in the typical way. Very easy reads, fiction books that are philosophy/fact very thinly veiled by a boring plot. But what is really being said is more than enough to keep you going.
The first book, Ishmael blows the minds of some, but I can't say it did me. The Story of B was much more valuable to the way that I think.
Also, remember that is what is good for the planet is good for us. While it has it's own worth, deep ecology [1] and gaia type stuff is easily attacked and broken down like any emotion-based thing. All of this stuff (/me waves arms) isn't worth anything if we cannot sustain our own lives and the life support system we call Earth.
[1] This is coming from an ecologist, an actual scientist. Not sure why they call it deep ecology rather than deep environmentalism- ecology is real science and deep ecology is not.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
A great deal of global warming, smog, etc. comes directly or indirectly from cars. Manufacturing them, driving them, and drilling for oil to support them all have environmental effects. Not to mention that the need for oil will probably be one of the major reasons for wars in the next few decades, and war is pretty bad for the environment too.
Reduce your community's dependence on cars by
a) donating money to a political party to support the local transit system
b) donating money to support the transit system
c) taking the bus or biking more often yourself when possible.
This way you will be in a position to see your money making a difference, and it will directly and positively improve your quality of life as a result.
Cheers!
Probably the best use of your money would be in your own backyard. Insulating your house, buying envionmentally friendly appliances, replacing all your incandecents with compact flouescents and maybe looking into using alterantive energy (photovoltaic, solar heating or whatever is appropriote where you live). You will save yourself money and energy use which will help the envionment and you would be surprised how being an example will generate intrest in your own neighborhood. Once you have done that then look at giving to a cause, or maybe joining a local envionmental group? Giving money is the easy way out, but contributing personally by making your home an example and then going out and helping others will give you the best bang for your buck.
Educate yourself first. Learn the issues. Know the vested interests. Find something that really makes you mad and fight for it.
I have one suggestion: Natural Capitalism. The best book I have ever read on the subject. This book is totally infuriating and completely inspiring.
Did you know that the subsidies that go to coal mining in Germany, if paid to the miners directly, would give them an annual income of US$65,000? Crazy...
Start with this book. Support the authors who work everyday on these issues. Check out the web site: http://www.natcap.org
A speech...
I have had a VW Golf TDI for about a year now (had a Honda Civic before) and it gets great mileage (the same or better then the Toyota Prius). And generally diesel is cheaper then gasoline. But if you are looking at getting a hybride don't get a VW TDI, it will cost less and last longer (VW desiels last eons it seems), use less fuel and you don't have to worry about the envionmental impact of the batteries.
No matter what change you want to effect in the world, ultimately it comes down to the battle of ideas and expressions. If there is no outlet for the ideas you believe in, it doesn't matter where you throw your money because the cause will be stifled, muted, and dwarfed by those in control of the media. So whatever your cause is (uh, well, unless its "maintaining a media monopoly"), you should probably throw some money to decentralized media, grassroots democracy, and watchdog organizations. There is IndyMedia. Democracy Now. Public Citizen. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). The list goes on... In general, helping putting power back in the hands of the people helps your cause whatever it is (because by deduction, you are part of "the people").
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
the reason "plant rights activists" don't like the vegetable and grain industrys is that they operate under the "black box" paradigm: here's a field, you put in food, water, and perstesides, and you get out plants and excrement. (Actually, a whole lot of excrement, which we'll get to later). The question is how to turn the most food into the most vegetable using the least square footage -- and the answer is one that treats the plants, animans and the envoronment in less than favorable conditions. But let's not consider whether plants live in painful conditions for the months before they die (who cares), but look only at the environmental impact of this scheme. Viz. ...
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
should have been
How many vegans did you meat?
First an introduction. I consider myself extremely environmental conscious. I recycle as much as possible. I never drive to work. yadda yadda yadda. I keep myself upto date with environmental issues, so I think I have an idea about what I talk about. With that said...
Do NOT support greenpeace. They are a terrorist organisation... All around the world, they support groups with interfere with the oil companies business. They damage (and in at least one case sink) military and scientific ships. They promote the destruction of crops in GM trials.
If you don't believe me do a search on google.
They have a noble cause, but they are furthering it by the wrong means. The really annoying thing is that several of my friends and even some of my family support them financially. I've tried smacking them with a clue-bat, alas with little success.
The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg has a lot to say about what environmental issues affect people the most and which are little more than scare stories.
IIRC the biggest threat to human health is the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation. Air polution is probably the biggest problem in developed countries. IMHO any organisation that talks more about nuclear power, global warming, GM foods, etc than these two issues is not effectively combating the important environmental issues.
(cue Balmer jumpling around)
All environmental problems stem from human over-population. More mouths = more food consumed, more housing, more roads, more SUV etc.
Even worse, there are superstitions that encourage this abuse - Catholoism, Momronism, and Socialism* are the ones I'm familiar with.
A family of 6 in *not* a beautifull thing - on a physics level, they are increasing the entropy of the universe, and on an environmental level is a disaster. On a sociological level, each child won't get the attention they need to thrive in modern socioty.
*Modern Socialism encourages over-breading by burdening the producers of wealth with taxes, and transfering that wealth to the lazy and stupid. The lazy and stupid, for some reason, breed more than normal.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Overpopulation is not the root cause though.
"Modern Socialism encourages over-breading by burdening the producers of wealth with taxes, and transfering that wealth to the lazy and stupid. The lazy and stupid, for some reason, breed more than normal."
Haha, there couldn't possibly be any correlation between the socioeconomic class of these "lazy and stupid" people and their "over-breading" could there? Maybe you need to reanalyze the causal relation here.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
On a sociological level, each child won't get the attention they need to thrive in modern socioty.
You mean they won't be the common only child spoiled brat. Good responsible parents give all their children the love and attention they need no matter how many kids they have. With bigger families, it just requires more effort and that can be a big problem if one has the feminist 'stay-at-home parents are losers' mindset. Some people tend to forget that the most important job that anyone will ever have is raising the next generation.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Some honest organizations I'd recommend are:
Audobon Society
Ducks Unlimited
Nature Conservancy
Pheasants Forever
correlation betewwn the socioeconomic class...
I know where you're comming from but...
When I was young, I use the moan about the plight of the poor in America. They were beaten, down-trodden, and rejected. O woe was them.
Then I happed to have the oppertunity to meet a young man from Vietnam that made his way to America. (After being tourtuted) He diden't speek any english at the time, and had no money to his name.
By working hard, studying english, and not buying stupid things (druges, fancy cars, expensive getto-ware, alcohol, TV) he's became quite sucuessfull, married and has two beautifull, inteligent, children. He never talked about his past problems - and only after we became close friends would he mention the torture he endured. He is a brave person.
*then it hit me*
Jesus, fucking christ! If one gets thier housing paid for, food paid for, education paid for - and *still* can't make it in America - than one deserves to FUCKING STARVE TO DEATH. Painfully. As an example to the other fuck-wits out there.
If some short, illiterate, pain-ridden, destitute boat-person can do it, thean the fuckers that constantly drain this country of tax money, sympathy, and government-cheese can do it.
In short, I save my sympathyes for people like my friends, and not the lazy whiners.
And in retrospect - I realied that I has grown up in a poor house. The sewer backed up into the basement - thick rich poop and urine had to be cleaned every three months during the rainy season. Any yet, I don't care. But you can bet your bottom doller that all the fuck-heads in section 8 housing would be cring "opression" the soon as their tax-payer funded housing even dripped one peice of poop onto their crack-stash.
Personally, I think America should do a bit better job handing out opertunity, and not free-food and housing. If we took the money we waste on the lazy and put it into free higher-education, we'd be a lot better off.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Your correct, there are many decent familes that have raied a large, inteligent and thoughfull families. And yes, there are a lot of spoiled-little-brats raised by yuppie dual-income families that are more worried about their BMW payemnt than their child's future.
I didn't meany to disparage the families that do it right. But on balance, large familes *are* more difficult to raise, and hence should probably not be the norm considering the fact that there are already 5.5 Billion people on this earth.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Even the most well run orgs run with a 10-25% administration costs, and I'd rather send directly to the cause I believe. A lot of the organizations have administrative costs of 50-80%.
Quite true and it seems as though the largest and most well-known charities are often the most wasteful.
I URGE anyone who gives money to any charity -- environmental or other -- to spend $3 and get the Charity Watchdog Report produced by the American Institute of Philanthropy . This group analyzes the financial books of over 400 charities and summarizes it for you so you know how wisely they spend the money they collect from you. I, myself, have quit supporting several charities I used to (and gave the money to other charitiable organizations in the same field) because of what I've read in the Watchdog Report.
GMD
watch this
Interesting note: Populations under presure tend to produce more, not less offspring.
There are specific circumstances where this is not the case, but there is a significant tendancy to produce MORE offspring when under presure. It may happen that int population does not rise as a significant portion of the increase is consumed by infant deaths.
Because the single most important thing we as a human race needs to do to assure survival is to Get Off This Rock.
Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
I'd say before becoming an activist environmentalist, change your own lifestyle. Even if you consider yourself living life as the best friend of the environment, go through your habits and see if there is any motorized transportation you can skip (less trips to grocery stores, using internet, phone or by mail services rather than going to places to arrange licenses, pay bills etc.) and if daily transportation could not just be done by walking or bicycling, or at least by buses which will drive around regardless of people inside them or not. Get rid of SUVs and pickup trucks, conserve water and power aggressively, make sure you reuse or recycle used products and trash.
If more people did this we wouldn't have as many SUVs with WWF and greenpeace stickers on them.
When people think about overpopulation, they often think of India and China which have very obvious problems. But the biggest threat to the environment in overpopulation in the US. Why? Because our standard of living (a euphimism for how much which consume) is so high. An American consumes far more of the planet's resources than a European or an Indian or a Chinese. The larger the population in the United States, the faster the drain on the world's resources.
As crazy as it sounds, if you're concerned about the environment, you need to be concerned about rampant illegal immigration. I am NOT against legal immigration. The "melting pot" concept is one of the reasons the US is such an incredible country. What I'm against is a flood of immigrants coming here faster than our system can handle. And if you're an environmentalist, you need to be concerned about this, too. Consider spending some of your philanthropic dollars on a population control group (but check The American Institute of Philanthropy first).
Of course, the real cure would be to get Americans to quit using so much gas, food, electricity, etc. but, let's be realistic, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
GMD
watch this
The Nature Conservancy is one of the best environmental groups to donate money to. They do a really good job with their money and always work with communities and businesses rather than causing trouble. Information on fiscal year 2001 can be found here and here. More about their goals and methods can be found here. And press releases can be found here. The Yahoo category can be found here.
-- Argel
While many of the above comments are interesting the query was for favorable charitable organizations.
The Sierra Club is the most effective Conservation Group politically. This is the first group I joined when W became President. Note that they will call you every month to squeeze more $$$ out of you. You can ask to be taken off their call list and still contribute annually which is what I do.
The Nature Conservancy is another particularly effective outfit whose tact is to purchase land outright ensuring that it is permanently set aside for conservation.
The World Wildlife Fund is another conservation group worthy of your time and money.
Finally for balance I support the Blue Ribbon Coalition as they keep trails open that might be closed by my other contributions.
Another poster made a great point that Green Peace's brand of violent activism is not worthy of support.
Cheers,
Bill
bamph
I am sure it must already have been said, but I would definately donate money to the Green Party. I know that here in Canada, there are Provincial wings, as well as the Federal Green Party. I am sure it is the same in the United States.
I feel that groups such as Greenpeace, while fighting for a formidable cause, are approaching it the wrong way. I realize that the chances of the Green Party winning an election - especially in the States - are very slim, indeed. However, the more votes the Green Parties get, it will hopefully encourage the incumbents to make their own platforms a little more Green.
And as an added bonus, political donations are tax deductible. Again, I am speaking from a Canadian perspective.
Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
The environmental movement isn't always what you might imagine. It's becomming common for desired land to be declared protected just so developers can get the rightful owners off the land. Once the owners have been cleared out, the protecded status of the land is lifted and you get a brand new strip mall where someone's house was.
I've been a member of the Nature Conservancy for some time (though I just let my membership lapse - need to renew). When I was facing the same question as the poster about seven years ago, I looked around. Groups like the Sierra Club and (gasp) Greenpeace annoy me because (1) They are beligerent, and (2) They use the money to hire lawyers and lobbyists. The money doesn't actually go to environmental protection in either case. I don't want my $100 to pay some greasy mercenary lobbyist - I want it to preserve land and protect our world.
This is where the Nature Conservancy comes in - they own the most land of any private organization in the US (I assume that excludes the Catholic Church). Instead of wasting members' money on politics, they use it to buy and protect land, setting up privately-held nature preserves. Rather than battling in court about a highway going through a swamp, they just buy a similar swamp and guarantee its ongoing protection.
Sure, I understand that the political aspect of environmentalism is also important, but I'd rather support something directly. Also, as a Nature Conservancy member, you're allowed on the preserves to enjoy nature. Much cooler than a bunch of left-wing extremist Greenpeace idiots letting diseased lab rats out of cages into the environment, or a bunch of overpaid Sierra Club suits paying off senators.
I did not design this game/I did not name the stakes/I just happen to like apples/And I am not afraid of snakes-AniD
So the more people we have on the planet the larger the ,etc.
impact those people will have on the environment. Most
all "environmental problems" stem from this. GW, Acid rain,
deforestation, dessertification, Smog, species extinction, etc
Even if we each individually reduce our impact, our _collective_ impact generally continues to grow. Therefore my #1 environmental
organization is Zero Pollulation Growth. http://www.zpg.org/
Good luck with your endeavor to help "save" the world. Thanks!
Given that the question is about neither privacy nor guns, why did you bring this up? Are you suggesting that he use a gun to shoot anti-environmentalists?
p.s. Don't forget Amendment IX.
...rather than associating yourself with a particular party.
> But that's a problem with parties in general; they
> try to force you to accept an entire platform
> rather than finding out what people want issue by
> issue
That's not a problem with parties, that's what parties are all about, a platform. The idea is to take a few basic principles and apply them to the concept of government. IOW, given principle X and issue Y, what should OUR policy be? Note the "OUR". This is a GROUP of people, ganging together, and pooling resources with hopes of increasing their influence by operating as a bloc. Obviously it involves compromises between the individual party members, but so far "partying" has been wildly successful.
Of course you are free to disagree, no one is forcing you into anything.
I suggest that you do what the founders intended and select a *candidate* as recipient of your vote, rather than a party. You will rarely find one that agrees with you on every issue you bring up, but I can often find one that is a close fit, or at least one that agrees with me on what I consider the major issues. I know it takes more work than simply "voting the party line", but that's OK if you really want your vote to be useful. If you don't want to research the candidates, that's OK too. Just don't vote.
Hey, if you are really unsatisfied with what's available, run for office yourself. No one but you is stopping you. That's what freedom is all about. Live your own life as you see fit, IOW, the freedom to govern yourself.
Good luck which ever path you choose.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
The fact that you lump the Sierra Club (SC) together with Greenpeace shows you know nothing about its actual mission. Greenpeace is a fringe group with perhaps good intentions, but horrible execution and little results. SC is mainstream, moderate environmental organization dedicated to conservation. Yes, SC (non-profit, but not a charity) does spend money on lawyers and lobbyists, but it is a grassroots group run by volunteers at the local level. Buying land may be a nice idea but frequently not an option.
To give an example, there is a very unique area in California called the "Gaviota Coast" (north of Santa Barbara). Most of the land is currently owned by ranchers and farmers. Financial pressure from Orange county/LA developers and taxes have led some owners to sell. Value of the whole area is roughly half a billion dollars! Millions of $$$ have already been spent protecting bits and pieces but there are not enough resources for everything. Therefore, lawyers are needed to ensure development restrictions are properly followed. Lobbyists try to convince state reps and senators the coast is worth protecting. SC works within the system and its members are passionate not "beligerent".
Most Europians used to have several children, as well, before the modern age. Did their culture somehow change to smart and hardworking?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
I understand your anti-Catholic feelings. We need to have more religious intolerance in the world, not less. The Mormons are just a cult that made it big.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Popoluation is not a controllable thing! To ask a person to have fewer children is to deny him the basic human right to self propagate.
European, and particulary Scandinavian, Socialism is a bit differewnt than American Socialism. European sytle, is socialism amung eaquels - were most people are hard working and smart. American soclaimism is where the stupid and lazy sponge off the hard working.
I would not gruge the European style, but I can tell you from experience, the American style sucks. Especially if you're part of the working class.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
What amazing insight (of the knee-jerk variety).
In case you haven't noticed, population can be controlled to a significant extent without harming human rights. The Catholic church has been doing it for a long time, just in the wrong direction. On the flip side, providing useful sexual education and easy access to contraception may help to limit population growth. No trampling on human rights required. Or just slip the Pope a mickey and convince him to say kids are bad.
In re-reading your post, I see that you say that asking someone not to have kids is an denies them their human rights. You're stupider than I previously believed. Should a panhandler be charged with theft because he asked me to give him money? If my girlfriend asks me to be at her place at 7:00, should I sue her for false imprisonment or kidnapping?
Well..you are talking in individual terms!. Think of the whole world as a closed system with population a variable...now think about the analogy of your girl friend asking you to be at 7:00 and asking the whole population to slow down? How many care? You always have a an option of not showing up at 7:00 if you don't like your girl friend.
One more thing....I don't think it's no longer sufficient to have fewer kids...the only thing that would slow it down is ...no kids at all!!!!
Simple geometric propagation my friend.
Man you are stirring me up...the only place population control has worked is in china which is well known for its human rights violation.
People there get punished for extra kids!!!
and one more thing....... Do you how many people (particularly the women crowd) are crazy about kids? Are you gonna ask them to quit having kids? You can't even ask someone to quit smoking..all you can do is put a warning label on it.
And you have the option of having kids, no matter who asks you not to. You're the one who used the term "asking," which is completely different from "requiring" or "compelling." Please explain more clearly how your human rights are violated by any person or body merely asking you to do or not do anything.
You also ignored the point that the Catholic church has influenced the world population without (in this case) violating human rights. There is no reason that an influential body such as the church could do likewise in the "fewer children" sense if it so desired.
Yes, "overbreading" makes fried food taste terrible, too!
Less bread would be better for the environment. Less energy wasted baking. We should all eat raw dough!
STOP OVER-BREADING NOW!
Here in CA, the main impact of the Sierra Club is in organizing many fine hikes and local trips. You can get a lot of amazing short vacations out of weekend Sierra Club trips. In Los Angeles, many of the Sierra Club leaders are ex-aerospace engineers who took early retirement in the last recession - hardly fire-breathing radicals.
This is why I support the Sierra Club. It does political lobbying but also puts together some really fun outreach.
Oh, and the "singles" chapter is a great alternative to hanging out at bars.
A true omnivore could eat rocks, dirt, grass, and wood. Our teeth can't grind rocks well enough to expose enough minerals and our digestive system can't extract nutrients well from any of the above. There are also many natural substances which are irritating or poisonous in various ways to humans.
We can eat snails, bird eggs, frog legs, lye-dried fish, hearts of palm, and mushrooms. Who is the comedian who pointed out "Our ancestors were braver than we are. Who found out that we can eat this stuff?"
The more similar to humans a food is, the more likely its parasites and illnesses will affect humans. Eating humans is quite unsafe. Eating pork only a little safer. Beef quite a bit safer. Chicken and fish even safer -- but chickens often have illness-causing bacteria around them. Fish also often have parasites and bacteria which can affect humans.
Of course, plants are quite distantly removed from us so what makes them sick is unlikely to make us sick. But there are many things in plants which are not good for us ("Here's your last meal, Socrates"). And eating enough plants to get proper nutrition is difficult. It can be done, but we survive more easily with some of the concentrated nutrition in meat.
There's even a theory that our brains did not start growing as large as they are until our ancestors began hunting. Provided with more nutrients, the people with larger brains could then survive longer than before. Which suggests that the mutations which caused our larger brains may have happened long ago but did not survive because people with larger brains were more likely to not survive bad times. At least not until they were able to use their brains to make bad times less likely to occur.
This space available for rent by any meat promotion council.
A "search Google" is not proof.
I think you are trolling.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
WWF and Greenpeace use different tactics for different problems in different places, so you over the board genralizations are absolutely innacurate and unfair.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Soylent Green, made from the best stuff on Earth, people!
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
More mouths = more food consumed
You have your causal relationship backwards. Consider: people are made of food, we are literally what we eat. Every molecule in your body is there because at one point or another, it was eaten.
Therefore, altho' it looks like food production must be expanded to cope with larger populations, in fact, increased food production has created the increase in population!
This is why I am so skeptical of "famines" in Africa. No matter how much financial and material aid the West sends, it makes no difference. There are no food shortages - it's solely corrupt governments starving their populations deliberately.