I don't think any of the things you listed constitute a good reason. My point in posting my last comment is that I think you and I have fundamentally different ideas of what is acceptable in terms of environmental compromise, and what values should shape our decisions to make those compromises. The "people first" attitude is one I'd accept if it weren't so short-sighted; most of what people advocate (and here I'm including the things you listed as "good reasons") as beneficial to people, really aren't in the long run. There is no human benefit in doing things which harm or threaten other species.
You keep talking about crazy environmentalists wanting to reduce human impact to zero, leading to human extinction. That couldn't be further from what I want. But human impact as it is has a great chance of leading to human extinction. And that also couldn't be further from what I want. I want humans to be an integral part of their ecosystem, rather than separate from and above it. What happens to the ecosystem affects humans, and it's time we acknowledge and accept that.
I do want to comment on one other thing from your post which I dismissed:
"What makes the Galapagos so special, as opposed to the virgin plains that's converted to farmland, or the untouched oil reserves that are converted to plastic for the case of your computer?"
I never said the Galapagos are special as opposed to those things, in fact I said exactly the opposite:
I'll be the first to admit that my lifestyle and that of those around me is harmful, devastatingly so. You aren't going to trick me into defending that and back-pedaling though.
In other words, the industrial processes upon which I depend are destructive, and I won't try to defend that. Period.
In yet other words,
Or are you just as upset that the vast wheat and corn fields have displaced whatever ecosystems were there before to grow your food, as you would be about destroying the Galapagos?
Yes. Absolutely, yes.
And another thing: 'On the other hand, it's possible to make batshit overreactions, like "no human being is allowed to set foot on the Galapagos ever again".'
I never, not once, said that. Why do you hate straw men so much that you must tear them down?
I wasn't actually passing judgement about the validity of the law in question, just saying that the law doesn't only count when you get caught. If it did, that would be tyranny (which isn't far off, and that's a whole other discussion, but I digress). As soon as the law is determined solely by what the people with guns say, there isn't even the pretense of freedom left.
Of course corporations shouldn't have freedoms that people don't have. But as the laws are, piracy by corporations *is* illegal, regardless of whether they are punished for it.
I was going to respond in full to your post, but then I came to this:
'You said the Galapagos should be preserved "because there's no good reason to destroy them". Believe it or not, I consider this essentially equivalent to "because we like it better the way it is"--if the Galapagos would be more useful to us in some other form, that would provide a very good reason to transform it! I would certainly believe that the well-being of my fellow humans is "good reason" to mine uranium for power plants, to plant farmland, and to build housing. We've thought of lots of ways to use land, but none of them provide "good reason" to change the Galapagos precisely because the Galapagos is better for us the way it is.'
Frankly, I don't think we're going to see eye to eye, and I don't think anything productive is going to come out of this.
"When did I ever say the Galapagos should be destroyed?"
What you said was that the Galapagos Islands are not good for anything if not for studying and "appreciating" them. In order to do so, there must be traffic to them, and that traffic is destroying them.
"Now you're the one making assumptions."
No, I'm using inference to draw conclusions based on what you've said you prefer, and the current effects in the practice thereof.
"All I said was that it was stupid to, point-blank, prevent ANYONE (even scientists) from setting foot there."
But it's not stupid to say they're no good for anything if not serving some purpose to us?
"I've been rather clear in pointing out that the Galapagos should be preserved because it's more valuable to us as the unique and beautiful ecosystem that it is."
I'll accept that. But the preservation can't be half-assed.
"What did you have to eat today? I hope it wasn't anything grown on a farm--vast amounts of land are radically transformed for our use, and according to you, the earth doesn't exist for that. Where do you live? The earth doesn't exist for your house or apartment building to be put there, it's not for our use! And the computer you're using--did it come from outer space, or did someone dig up and process parts of the earth's crust to make it for you?"
Ignoring the fact that some of this is asinine and rhetorical, I'll be the first to admit that my lifestyle and that of those around me is harmful, devastatingly so. You aren't going to trick me into defending that and back-pedaling though. It's a trade-off I make, one that destroys my heart, but one that I think might ultimately be worth it as I can affect more by not totally withdrawing from a destructive culture than I can by withdrawing.
I don't think we have a major disagreement. I just think that the premise, that islands need to be "worth" something in order to preserve them--that they need to serve some purpose to us to not be worthy of protection from destruction--is harmful and unnecessary. We should not destroy--in other words, "preserve"-- the Galapagos because there's no good reason to destroy them. The same goes for bloody everywhere.
What good are the Galapagos islands if no one can study or appreciate them?
You know, I can answer that. The answer is that the Galapagos islands don't need to justify themselves to you. What good they are is that they exist.
"The premise I started with is that the standard of right and wrong is based upon the well-being of people in general."
What the hell well-being of people in general is derived from destroying the Galapagos (the general effect of the traffic there to study and appreciate them)?
"Allowing no scientific study or other close observation of the Galapagos would thus be wrong, because the human race would be denied the scientific knowledge we can gain from the Galapagos, as well as their beauty."
And we won't be denied those anyway?
"Similarly, allowing me to continue existing serves my well-being, along with the well-being of other people who rather like having me around, while killing me would serve the well-being of no one. Also, if you try to kill me, I just might have to defend myself. That wouldn't be very good for your well-being. And even if you survived and successfully murdered me, you would likely be traumatized by the experience, and possibly held to justice by the legal system."
Way to miss the point, yet again.
The Galapagos don't need to justify their existence to you, nor serve any purpose to you nor anyone else.
The earth doesn't exist for our use. It exists to exist.
What good are you? I didn't realize beings, places and things need to justify their existence in terms of how you can use them in order for you to allow them to continue to exist.
A web application should be cleaning up after each transaction to arrive at a safe state; why wouldn't a web server do the same? If it doesn't, it should.
The process didn't end. See the proposed forced removal of Indians in Arizona and Nevada; the mining and or dumping of toxic waste on Indian lands in those regions and others; the sanctions on Iraq which consumed more than 1.5 million people; the continued occupation of 1/3 of the claimed US territory which even the US government admits was stolen without even a fraudulent claim thereto; the financing and arming of Israel while they do to Palestinians something not unlike what the US did to Indians.
Depends a lot on the situation. But judging by general reactions to the threat of ecological disaster, I'd say it's unlikely to be true unless the dying is imminent. At which point, it's kind of moot, since a population in such serious decline isn't likely to be productive enough to maintain tyranny by acquiescence.
I don't think moving away or otherwise withdrawing from _________ is sufficient, but I don't think it's really harmful either. If all the people who nominally oppose _____________ simply quit participating in it, __________ would definitely have a much harder time functioning.
I honestly wish I knew. It's something we (Americans) need to figure out together, rather than shrugging it off, though. But we should do more than just vote, that's for damn sure.
Huh? Are you telling me to reply to the person who falsified my quote and is now following me around demanding I admit I lied when I didn't? Sorry, better things to do than feed the troll.
If you look at the guy's posting history, it's obvious he's just as abusive and unprincipled no matter who he's dealing with. I have, as I said, better things to do.
"I was too young to vote until October 1998. So how can I be responsible for the actions of my government that occurred before January 1999, when the House of Representatives elected in November 1998 took office?"
I don't really agree with the cultural assumption that responsibility doesn't exist prior to the age of 18, and exists fully at the age of 18. And I don't think voting is the only (or even primary) way the US government is influenced. Nonetheless, I'd be happy to accept that you weren't responsible to the crimes of the US government before 1999. But it's been eight years since 1999.
"And how can I be responsible for the actions of the neoconservative administration that I explicitly voted against?"
Your vote obviously didn't stop them, that's how. I'm working on the basis of, at the very least, international legal precedent (if not basic human decency), which passed judgement on the whole of the German population following World War II, for having failed in its basic responsibility to curtail the crimes of its government. This is a precedent set primarily by the US, so it should at least apply here.
The judgement didn't say that Germans should have voted the nazis administration out of office, either. The judgement was made with the knowledge that such a thing would have been impossible, and would have been beside the point anyway.
"What should I do first to change the direction of the U.S. Government?"
I don't think you're qualified to judge the truthfulness of my statements or my source's statements, given the fact that you just altered a quote of what I'd said to say something different. That's all that needs to be said about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Which has exactly what to do with me?
You keep talking about crazy environmentalists wanting to reduce human impact to zero, leading to human extinction. That couldn't be further from what I want. But human impact as it is has a great chance of leading to human extinction. And that also couldn't be further from what I want. I want humans to be an integral part of their ecosystem, rather than separate from and above it. What happens to the ecosystem affects humans, and it's time we acknowledge and accept that.
I do want to comment on one other thing from your post which I dismissed:
"What makes the Galapagos so special, as opposed to the virgin plains that's converted to farmland, or the untouched oil reserves that are converted to plastic for the case of your computer?"
I never said the Galapagos are special as opposed to those things, in fact I said exactly the opposite:
In other words, the industrial processes upon which I depend are destructive, and I won't try to defend that. Period.
In yet other words, Yes. Absolutely, yes.
And another thing: 'On the other hand, it's possible to make batshit overreactions, like "no human being is allowed to set foot on the Galapagos ever again".'
I never, not once, said that. Why do you hate straw men so much that you must tear them down?
I wasn't actually passing judgement about the validity of the law in question, just saying that the law doesn't only count when you get caught. If it did, that would be tyranny (which isn't far off, and that's a whole other discussion, but I digress). As soon as the law is determined solely by what the people with guns say, there isn't even the pretense of freedom left.
Of course corporations shouldn't have freedoms that people don't have. But as the laws are, piracy by corporations *is* illegal, regardless of whether they are punished for it.
I was going to respond in full to your post, but then I came to this:
'You said the Galapagos should be preserved "because there's no good reason to destroy them". Believe it or not, I consider this essentially equivalent to "because we like it better the way it is"--if the Galapagos would be more useful to us in some other form, that would provide a very good reason to transform it! I would certainly believe that the well-being of my fellow humans is "good reason" to mine uranium for power plants, to plant farmland, and to build housing. We've thought of lots of ways to use land, but none of them provide "good reason" to change the Galapagos precisely because the Galapagos is better for us the way it is.'
Frankly, I don't think we're going to see eye to eye, and I don't think anything productive is going to come out of this.
Er, by that logic, nothing is against the law, and the only law is that of the people with guns. Fascism, fuck yeah!
Probably won't be great for the bird population either.
"When did I ever say the Galapagos should be destroyed?"
What you said was that the Galapagos Islands are not good for anything if not for studying and "appreciating" them. In order to do so, there must be traffic to them, and that traffic is destroying them.
"Now you're the one making assumptions."
No, I'm using inference to draw conclusions based on what you've said you prefer, and the current effects in the practice thereof.
"All I said was that it was stupid to, point-blank, prevent ANYONE (even scientists) from setting foot there."
But it's not stupid to say they're no good for anything if not serving some purpose to us?
"I've been rather clear in pointing out that the Galapagos should be preserved because it's more valuable to us as the unique and beautiful ecosystem that it is."
I'll accept that. But the preservation can't be half-assed.
"What did you have to eat today? I hope it wasn't anything grown on a farm--vast amounts of land are radically transformed for our use, and according to you, the earth doesn't exist for that. Where do you live? The earth doesn't exist for your house or apartment building to be put there, it's not for our use! And the computer you're using--did it come from outer space, or did someone dig up and process parts of the earth's crust to make it for you?"
Ignoring the fact that some of this is asinine and rhetorical, I'll be the first to admit that my lifestyle and that of those around me is harmful, devastatingly so. You aren't going to trick me into defending that and back-pedaling though. It's a trade-off I make, one that destroys my heart, but one that I think might ultimately be worth it as I can affect more by not totally withdrawing from a destructive culture than I can by withdrawing.
I don't think we have a major disagreement. I just think that the premise, that islands need to be "worth" something in order to preserve them--that they need to serve some purpose to us to not be worthy of protection from destruction--is harmful and unnecessary. We should not destroy--in other words, "preserve"-- the Galapagos because there's no good reason to destroy them. The same goes for bloody everywhere.
Oh, really?
You know, I can answer that. The answer is that the Galapagos islands don't need to justify themselves to you. What good they are is that they exist.
"The premise I started with is that the standard of right and wrong is based upon the well-being of people in general."
What the hell well-being of people in general is derived from destroying the Galapagos (the general effect of the traffic there to study and appreciate them)?
"Allowing no scientific study or other close observation of the Galapagos would thus be wrong, because the human race would be denied the scientific knowledge we can gain from the Galapagos, as well as their beauty."
And we won't be denied those anyway?
"Similarly, allowing me to continue existing serves my well-being, along with the well-being of other people who rather like having me around, while killing me would serve the well-being of no one. Also, if you try to kill me, I just might have to defend myself. That wouldn't be very good for your well-being. And even if you survived and successfully murdered me, you would likely be traumatized by the experience, and possibly held to justice by the legal system."
Way to miss the point, yet again.
The Galapagos don't need to justify their existence to you, nor serve any purpose to you nor anyone else.
The earth doesn't exist for our use. It exists to exist.
You're making a lot of assumptions, and still haven't answered my question.
If you can't tell me what good you are, why should I let you continue to exist? Isn't that the premise you started with?
No, really. What good are you if you can't so much as justify your existence in some way I can use?
So like...
You want "great employment"--a job. A bird wants to eat and fuck.
And you're the superior one?
What good are you? I didn't realize beings, places and things need to justify their existence in terms of how you can use them in order for you to allow them to continue to exist.
If the contrast is liberalism, and the metric for "education" is years spent in a classroom, sure. Not sure that's saying much, though!
A web application should be cleaning up after each transaction to arrive at a safe state; why wouldn't a web server do the same? If it doesn't, it should.
The process didn't end. See the proposed forced removal of Indians in Arizona and Nevada; the mining and or dumping of toxic waste on Indian lands in those regions and others; the sanctions on Iraq which consumed more than 1.5 million people; the continued occupation of 1/3 of the claimed US territory which even the US government admits was stolen without even a fraudulent claim thereto; the financing and arming of Israel while they do to Palestinians something not unlike what the US did to Indians.
Because the US and UK couldn't possibly be held responsible for the sanctions they imposed, it's some other countries' fault.
Depends a lot on the situation. But judging by general reactions to the threat of ecological disaster, I'd say it's unlikely to be true unless the dying is imminent. At which point, it's kind of moot, since a population in such serious decline isn't likely to be productive enough to maintain tyranny by acquiescence.
Front or competitor?
Mightn't it be a simple matter of demographics? There's a direct correlation between money, technology and conservatism.
That's kind of beside the point. The point isn't to flee responsibility, but to address it.
I don't think moving away or otherwise withdrawing from _________ is sufficient, but I don't think it's really harmful either. If all the people who nominally oppose _____________ simply quit participating in it, __________ would definitely have a much harder time functioning.
I honestly wish I knew. It's something we (Americans) need to figure out together, rather than shrugging it off, though. But we should do more than just vote, that's for damn sure.
Huh? Are you telling me to reply to the person who falsified my quote and is now following me around demanding I admit I lied when I didn't? Sorry, better things to do than feed the troll.
If you look at the guy's posting history, it's obvious he's just as abusive and unprincipled no matter who he's dealing with. I have, as I said, better things to do.
"I was too young to vote until October 1998. So how can I be responsible for the actions of my government that occurred before January 1999, when the House of Representatives elected in November 1998 took office?"
I don't really agree with the cultural assumption that responsibility doesn't exist prior to the age of 18, and exists fully at the age of 18. And I don't think voting is the only (or even primary) way the US government is influenced. Nonetheless, I'd be happy to accept that you weren't responsible to the crimes of the US government before 1999. But it's been eight years since 1999.
"And how can I be responsible for the actions of the neoconservative administration that I explicitly voted against?"
Your vote obviously didn't stop them, that's how. I'm working on the basis of, at the very least, international legal precedent (if not basic human decency), which passed judgement on the whole of the German population following World War II, for having failed in its basic responsibility to curtail the crimes of its government. This is a precedent set primarily by the US, so it should at least apply here.
The judgement didn't say that Germans should have voted the nazis administration out of office, either. The judgement was made with the knowledge that such a thing would have been impossible, and would have been beside the point anyway.
"What should I do first to change the direction of the U.S. Government?"
Whatever it takes.
I don't think you're qualified to judge the truthfulness of my statements or my source's statements, given the fact that you just altered a quote of what I'd said to say something different. That's all that needs to be said about that.