Mother Earth is a heartless bitch, as any photograph of a cat penis will inform you.
What's more relevant is that our existence is a brief fragile flash of coincidence in an infinite universe of hostility, and pretending that our stability is the natural state of affairs rather than a hard- fought and hard-won exploitation of accidents is to invite disaster. We're not saving the *environment* - the cockroaches will continue on quite happily, and I'm sure something will evolve that'll thrive in a venus-like environment. This is about saving *us* - I'm in this for Kona Coffee, the last act of the 9th symphony and seeing the Steelers win another ring. On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:28 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> My friends who are solidly on the Right are determined that we are >> either >> incapable of impacting climate, that these is no such thing or that >> it's >> all a Communist Plot. They vomit data (even WND "data", shame on you >> Randy) and opinions and shake angry fingers to prove their points - >> which >> are mostly about a Coming Socialist Takeover. Frankly I think they >> have >> some points as far as questioning the extent of human impact and our >> ability to forecast, but the wild paranoid conspiracy ranting makes >> it >> hard to take seriously. >> >> I guess I get the basic political alignment - since we are all >> embedded >> in it, "climate" tends towards group-oriented politics: since it >> triggers >> group-oriented politics, it triggers counter-groupism responses - >> but the >> stridency and dedication to the points along political boundaries >> still >> puzzle me. Doesn't anyone care what the real answer(s) is/are? What >> would happen to the political Losing Side if/when this is more >> definitively answered? If (as seems majority opinion) mankind is >> having >> an effect on climate does it mean the complete collapse of political >> conservatism - even though it would mean we really do need to do >> something about it? If it turns out that we can double our carbon >> output >> four more times without harm (as Martin suggests), would the liberals >> throw themselves off cliffs in droves - even though it would mean a >> reprieve from looming disaster? >> >> I'm just interested in seeing that we continue to increase our >> understanding of (climate, biology, etc). My political opinions >> aren't >> threatened no matter what researchers discover or propose. I don't >> understand the eagerness of either side to find proof that the >> world is >> either ending any minute or that we should be free to pollute without >> restriction. >> >> It's more than a little creepy from both sides. >> > > Regardless of the arguments on either side, we should all endeavor > to take > better care of Mother Earth. > > You can only poison it so much before [insert pedantic issue here]. > > - - ferg > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) > > wj8DBQFLIFysq1pz9mNUZTMRAl4EAKC01BekUZmj7zFkUreqfL2Egu1dQQCgwBMZ > zt+wEBQY2wF5IK3HteFrTk0= > =bRUz > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson > Engineering Architecture for the Internet > fergdawgster(at)gmail.com > ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. Mike Collins [email protected] _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
