Actually they don't, they are really serious - Voluntary Human Extintion Movement ????
to save Seahorses and Polar Bearshttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/30/friday-funny-screwy-thinking-for-earth-day/#more-60395
1976 SeaCraft master Angler - Merc 200 XRi
"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!"
—Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).
Wait, wooh, what?:huh
"Stone age"..........."our appropriate technology"
Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too.
—Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
Anyone who disagrees should be labeled a ****.
Endangered species, who needs them?
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000. George W Bush
But of course, it's all a plot by Walmart for profitability run by liberals intending on implementing socialism and denying fishermen the ability to keep fish that are really overabundant. There's no way these people actually believe what they are saying or honestly want to make the Earth a better place.
It's much easier to label them **** and demean them for trying to do what they see as right and dedicating their lives to their cause.
I'm not saying that they are 100% right, no more than I would say anyone is, but a closed mind is a very dangerous thing and to deny the problems that face the human race because a few of us can't keep as many fish as we'd like is a very poor and self-centered choice, IMO.
A bit of background.
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.
—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
BTW - I have said before the Walton Foundation and WalMart Corp are two different animals - last year WalMart Corp political contributions were 96% Republican - doesn't sound very liberial
You are right. There have been lots of predictions that were made in error. Nobody has a crystal ball.
However, I do believe -- rather strongly -- that the underlying concerns of pollution, overpopulation, and limited natural resources are very real.
And the fact that some of the activists' predictions have not come to pass doesn't change that realization, nor does it make me feel comfortable in sticking my head in the sand and ignoring them, nor does it cause me to demean (e.g. liken to a ****) those who disagree with my opinion.
You see, the **** used a very similar campaign of marginalizing and demeaning those who disagreed with their view of the world -- just before slaughtering them by the millions. To somehow liken those who fight for environmental causes to **** and at the same time use the same tactics is sickening to me, personally, but quite par for the course for a few individuals on this forum, unfortunately.
Take care & have a nice weekend...Mike
Specifically, what underlying points and (mis)characterizations do you disagree with?
You sure you really want to go down this rabbit hole?
"Man is not distinguished from [the animals] by a special kind of soul, or by any peculiar and exclusive psychic function, but only by a higher degree of psychic activity, a superior stage of development." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology
Too many to list. Here are three....
For instance, one that you are very familiar with, the hypocrisy that self interest is only bad when it's expressed by those who you disagree with. The author spends a large part of this editorial describing the influences of many individuals, foundations, and eNGOs, yet the fact that his father was a displaced abalone diver is hardly mentioned (although, to his credit, it is mentioned).
A second mis-characterization is the eNGOs view on artificial reefs, a topic that has also been recently discussed.
A third is the inaccurate use of pejoratives. That's fine if you're writing an editorial, but not when you're interspersing facts and opinions without making the distinction, IMO.
You by your posts one would surmise you were well read. Please discuss Haeckel's influence on German National Socialists views on man and the environment.
That doesn't mean Haeckel didn't speak to underlying truths, however, as evidenced in his quote above. The best madmen and liars use a bit of truth, and that's the rub, where does it turn from one to the other? For instance, where does Haeckel go off the deep end, and where does he speak the truth? Where does Jane do the same? Where does the EDF? Where do you? Where do I? Should we always throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Why do you ask?