Then talk about it then.

Collectivism!!!

And she's at the door, slavering for our lives, our minds, our progress, and our liberty.

Yes to missing the point. Reasoning, logic, imagination, and creation are not necessarily easy to do and apply.

In Western Europe, in the preindustrial Middle Ages, man’s life expectancy was 30 years. In the nineteenth century, Europe’s population grew by 300 percent—which is the best proof of the fact that for the first time in human history, industry gave the great masses of people a chance to survive.

If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States (from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company):

1900
47.3 years
1920
53 years
1940
60 years
1968
70.2 years (the latest figures compiled)
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent “Thank you” to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.

Let's see what Rand had to say:

In Western Europe, in the preindustrial Middle Ages, man’s life expectancy was 30 years. In the nineteenth century, Europe’s population grew by 300 percent—which is the best proof of the fact that for the first time in human history, industry gave the great masses of people a chance to survive.

If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States (from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company):

1900
47.3 years
1920
53 years
1940
60 years
1968
70.2 years (the latest figures compiled)
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent “Thank you” to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.

Let's start with the lies of environmentalists? Do you admit that environmentalists have killed 100 million people in the last century?

Do you admit they have lied over and over to advance their agenda?

And that is a great topic...

No...but we should fight to get back to it.

I have read all of Ayn Rands books and articles. Started when I was 16.
And do you really believe that we actually have capitalism?

Rich, you paint a very bleak picture in my mind. Rodan's "The Thinker" sitting in the middle of a vast empty, lifeless wasteland of that which was once a vibrant, thriving complex of interconnected life--my mother planet. I see no reason for conflict between nature and man's mind.

I subscribe fully to Pantheism not as a religion but as a paradigm. If the Universe and God are an identity, then couldn't scientists and philosophers--men of the mind--be considered the true prophets? Wouldn't God smile on his children striving to uncover the secrets of the Universe? Perhaps its this journey that is the true meaning of life.

I proudly admit to being "green" (although my favorite color is orange), and I am damn sure not a communist.

isn't it curious that they praise conservation but consider conservatives the enemy?

What a near-sighted, out-of-context garble of rationalizations. Yes, human consciousness is the greatest value, a unique artifact of evolution. And you cannot separate it from the earth whose conditions gave rise to it. You cannot have mind without the mechanism of the brain and the body that feeds and maintains it, and the life support system of the earth on which the living being depends to keep its brain working.

Unless you claim that the mind can have an independent existence outside of its meat machine, sort of like religious belief in a soul that survives physical death, or unless you think we can store our individual mental content in machines or in natural forces that don't depend on an earth to maintain their perpetual continuity, you cannot have mind without its entire planetary support system.

Yes, nature is red in tooth and claw, and that is the selection process of what will survive. We humans and our much-vaunted minds are not advanced enough yet to have developed beyond the stage of devouring each other. We are still pragmatic and virtual cannibals of each other's energies instead of using our intelligence to secure long-term survivability of each individual within the existing reality.

To detach mind from its living host so that it will survive past the extinguishing of our solar system and the cosmic cataclysms of galaxies colliding and black holes reabsorbing all the stuff of the universe, you'll have to find a storage medium that is indestructible and yet self-directed, capable of being anywhere and everywhere, and having reached a stage of development of being able to control its environment or of being immutable to any changes in its environment; in brief, immortality, omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.

And then what? Where is the joy in that? Where is the purpose of existence beyond that? Is that really what you think was the project of a deity in engineering the evolution of lifeforms from microorganisms through all the layers of complexification until an apeman emerged with a brain capable of abstract thought and self-aware reasoning? As science fiction writers have speculated, maybe all our Universe and creation of sentient minds was just some godling's school project.

To sum up your false choice, mind and earth are not separable and divisible where one has to be destroyed for the sake of the other. Our longest-range self-interest is in preserving both. A mind detached from its physical environment is a vacuous ideal, and the memes (the mind's content) promulgating that notion are on a self-destruct course. Not even a trillion-dollar profit is worth that.

Which "countries are the freest... and have the least impact on the environment?" And how do they do that?

How does "Our species preserve other species?"
Please give examples.

If you think that "the goal is human life" and "we are incredibly successful at it" can you offer examples to back that up?

I think that you need to expand your world-view. I can help you.

I would really like to know where your thoughts are coming from.

you are forcing an agenda, which is separate from the evidence and facts. You will necessarily run up against opposition. What AR have you read? It's impossible that you could have studied environmentalism and not seen the agenda pushed, the consistent lies, the attacks on capitalism, humanism and the deaths that came about due to policies and pressures...see DDT. "Open-mindedness" is the last argument of those who have no rational argument

I think your ignorance of the environmental movement is appalling, but I doubt you care. You have yet to explain why environmentalists still support polices that have killed over 100 million people, you have not explained why they consistently lied about the data, and you have not explained why they call for the death of over 5.5 billion people. But you are sure they are about love.

Deaths Caused by Global Warming Hoax

The United States is spending about $10 billion a year on Global Warming research. http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/28/the-b... I think it is safe to say that at least $100 billion has been spent worldwide on Global Warming over the last decade. It costs about $20 to provide infrastructure for clean water for one person. According to WHO, 30,000 deaths occur every week from unsafe water and unhygienic living conditions. Most of these deaths are children under five years old. That is over 600,000 deaths per year because of poor water infrastructure. If the $10 billion being wasted on Global Warming research were instead applied to water infrastructure, this could save 50 million lives. The Global Warming Hoax has cost the lives of at 6 million people.?

How AGW Advocates Have Lied

“The latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000 measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15 years.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

It is well known that the main driver of the temperature on Earth are the variations in the amount of solar energy the Earth receives. “Experiments at the CERN laboratory in Geneva have supported the theory of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark that the sun — not man-made CO2 — is the biggest driver of climate change.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor – over 95%, but you never hear about this from AGW advocates. http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-w...

“Natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.” http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-w...



Below, IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -UN) Experts comment on the IPCC, which is the group at the UN that has been saying a consensus of scientist s “believe” in Global Warming http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2011/1...

Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Goal of AGW

The goal of AGW is to kill capitalism and as a result kill millions of people. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace explained. (Environmentalism today is) more about globalism and anti-capitalism than it is about science or ecology….

“Ultimately, no problem may be more threatening to the Earth’s environment than the proliferation of the human species.”
— Anastasia Toufexis, “Overpopulation: Too Many Mouths,” article in Time’s special “Planet of the Year” edition, January 2, 1989. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-di...

“Today, life on Earth is disappearing faster than the days when dinosaurs breathed their last, but for a very different reason….Us homo sapiens are turning out to be as destructive a force as any asteroid. Earth’s intricate web of ecosystems thrived for millions of years as natural paradises, until we came along, paved paradise, and put up a parking lot. Our assault on nature is killing off the very things we depend on for our own lives….The stark reality is that there are simply too many of us, and we consume way too much, especially here at home….It will take a massive global effort to make things right, but the solutions are not a secret: control population, recycle, reduce consumption, develop green technologies.”
— NBC’s Matt Lauer hosting Countdown to Doomsday, a two-hour June 14, 2006 Sci-Fi Channel special. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-di...
“My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” http://jiminmontana.wordpress.com/2012/0...



Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,

“People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.” http://jiminmontana.wordpress.com/2012/0...



“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,” Turner stated in 1996.[1]

A leading environmentalist, Dr. Eric R. Pianka advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola in front of few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science who rose to their feet, and gave him a standing ovation.[2] Dr. Pianka attempted to deny this, but the evidence was overwhelming including his student evaluations.





Environmentalism is a Religion – and that religion is anti-human and EVIL

thanks for the wiki education. If you'd like, I can point you to multiple sources showing the philosophy of environmentalism. I am well aware of academia's recent cash cow of new majors. any science that begins with legislation is not science.the education is re-writing history, ignoring truth, and the ethics are a religion.

I'm not sure, anymore. I was happy, at first, to find this community. But I find that a lot of people here get off on hating the other side whatever that is at the moment. Lots of opinions with little support from facts. And the strawman fallacy runs rampant. Some of the arguments here could rival the self righteousness of the religious right. I wanted a healthy discourse, I'm not always right but when I hear facts I look them up and learn.
I can see why people get turned off. When I was in the Mpls libertarian party, people were knowledgeable and open minded. There was respectful discourse and we all enjoyed the intellectual exercises. A few people suggested I leave. I may consider their suggestion. It's not fun anymore..

I think that you may be ignorant of the definition of environmentalism. I would hate to see you argue for a misconception of the definition. According to Wikipedia: Environmental protection is a practice of protecting the natural environment on individual, organizational or governmental levels, for the benefit of both the natural environment and humans. Due to the pressures of population and technology, the biophysical environment is being degraded, sometimes permanently. This has been recognized, and governments have begun placing restraints on activities that cause environmental degradation. Since the 1960s, activity of environmental movements has created awareness of the various environmental issues. There is no agreement on the extent of the environmental impact of human activity, and protection measures are occasionally criticized.

Academic institutions now offer courses, such as environmental studies, environmental management and environmental engineering, that teach the history and methods of environment protection. Protection of the environment is needed due to various human activities. Waste production, air pollution, and loss of biodiversity (resulting from the introduction of invasive species and species extinction) are some of the issues related to environmental protection.

Environmental protection is influenced by three interwoven factors: environmental legislation, ethics and education. Each of these factors plays its part in influencing national-level environmental decisions and personal-level environmental values and behaviors. For environmental protection to become a reality, it is important for societies to develop each of these areas that, together, will inform and drive environmental decisions.[1]

Well said!

yes, please think. every species must value itself or go extinct. environmentalism is based on the theory that Man is bad. This is why their policies include de-population-that is anti-human and evil. even by environmentalist standards, those countries which are the freest, most technologically advanced have the least impact on the environment. Our species preserves other species-but that is not the goal. the goal is human life. we are incredibly successful at it, when we pursue logic and human-centered philosophies.

?

"Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence.Notice, first is the fundamental nature of existence and then man's relationship with it.

" ...philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists." Again, the totality of the universe comes before man.

If you ask anyone to narrate the evolution of the world since the "Big Bang" the story will no doubt end with the state of the world today. Try to block out the "emergence of Man" for a moment and see the world as it is... a vastly evolved menagerie of many, many life forms, some here today, many not. Then put Man (humanity) into the mix and you will see that, even though we humans are the dominant species on the face of the Earth today, we have not been doing a very good job as "Stewards of our world."

Think about it. We should not be content to think that we are the best of creation/evolution. We should be thinking "How can we improve upon what Nature has given us?"

Peace out! Live well and KEEP THINKING!

"opposing beliefs" this is not a site for beliefs. Environmentalism is anti-human, it's caused over 100M deaths in the last century. We like reason here.

are you a platonist fountainhead?! troll day