• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ocean warming and mass extinction event

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Weather a city dweller or a rural farmer, each individual has an environmental footprint. Impacts vary, true; but the single greatest impact -- or non-impact, if you prefer -- in a person's life is continuing his impact for another 3-score-and-ten by creating another human being.

Something I learned in studying environmental ethics was the "I = P x A x T" formula. Essentially, the "I" impact of human activities is a multiplicative function of "P" (population), "A" (affluence; consumption rates for each person), and "T" (technology; how resource intensive the production of affluence is). It's a simplification, but it conveys the major players in environmental impacts. Each of those needs to be addressed to reduce environmental impact. Of the three, the population problem is the one that is least discussed or acknowledged.
 

McBell

Unbound
I think this whole argument that talking to them like a hippie will work is rather useless. For one these people are backed by huge powerful movements. Oil and gas, consumerist retail, fox news, heck the very nature of capitalism itself is anti environment. Being all kumbaya with these people is rather useless.

Your country is the prime example of what happens when people take a passive approach towards environmentalism. It's a prime example of scientists trying to not step on any toes, while the environment goes to ****. When the deniers came out, people ran inside.

It's also a prime example of the failure of the Left, who focused on rather insignificant issues than focusing on the biggest problem facing humanity at the moment.




Honestly the whole breeder argument is bull****. A single NYC socialite has a far higher carbon footprint than a family of five living off the land in Wyoming. In fact by breeding out environmentally conscious people you are reducing the power of the voting block in the future. Small level gardening won't do jack squat if your culture is geared towards massive consumption.

I am doing a lot, and it won't be enough. To be honest I think the future is set now, carbon emissions will continue to grow and **** will hit the fan more and more. Kumbaya hippies have failed, the scientists have failed. The future belongs to preppers, environmental authoritarian governments and mad max style badlands.
Please be so kind as to present a time (or more) where being the biggest *** hole possible helped further the *** holes agenda.
 
Top