Dear Liz, My concern is that almost all of the discussion of "environmental damage" seems to assume that Humanity is somehow a foreign present in the environment, as if we are invaders form space. AFAIK, humans are part of the Earth just as much as rainforests and ants. Why are human activities focused upon in ways that seem to be completely motivated toward some goal of control and "management"? I don't like to be treated as a child that needs to be told what to do and when "for my own good". Why is it that those in the Green movement, like Chris, seem so bound and determined to do exactly that? At the rate we are going, it looks like we will be back to a techo-feudalism where a few elite humans control most of the land and resources and the rest of us will be allowed to live out our lives according to strict "sustainability" laws.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:00 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 April 2014 05:18, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote: > >> Dear Friends, >> >> Is there a single objective definition of "damage to the environment"? >> >> Given the complexity of the environment, I very much doubt it. There are > some proxies for it, of course, e.g. rate of species extinctions, amount of > ice cap melting, proportion of rainforest cut down, amount of plastic > floating in the ocean, amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, etc... All of these > are certainly *part* of the damage to the environment, but they can't be > said to constitute a "single objective definition". And of course our > environmental damage goes back thousands of years. We don't necessarily > know what constitutes a natural pre-human environment, and it may not be > something we'd want in any case. Personally I doubt it. (What we *do*want is > an environment that won't kill most of us, which is what we've had > in the recent historical past, i.e. one that supports agriculture and keeps > some of the sea locked up in ice, but not so much that the ice caps start > covering half the planet. A human-friendly environment, in other words - > which is what we appear to be in danger of throwing away.) > > Of course if we were stupid enough to wait around for a "single objective > definition" before we tried to do anything about preventing environmental > destruction, by the time we get one we wouldn't have much of an environment > to apply it to. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ "This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
