Environmentalists are a bunch of selfish bastards.
Environmentalists want to decide which species thrive and which fall by the way side. Who are they to decide? If the Polar Bears become extinct, then something else will take their place. A new speicies will flurish. If we leave it up to the environmentalists, new species would never get to have their day in the sun. If Polar Bears die out then that means that they were unable to adapt. The rule of the game is adapt or perish. The strong survive. That is the whole point of evolution. Environmentalists would tamper with mother nature. I say let mother nature decide who thrieves and who dies. That's her role, her job.
True.
Side Score: 4
|
 |
I resemble that remark.
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
It made sense where you mentioned the part about evolution, and that each living organism's features and capabilities are taken into consideration in their survival, and other food chains. - And environmentalists do help animals for a profit. I wonder if they would have no income for their work, would they still be nice for the animals? - I'll always remember George Carlin's words, "Earth has taken many damages through billions of years, and we worry about a plastic bottle in the field making carbon. Earth is ok and always will be. Humans are the ones who get fucked and wiped off the Earths surface, but not the Earth," Side: True.
|
2
points
You have found several articles debunking global warming that say that greenhouse gases are used by Earth to regulate temperature, BUT we humans don't create a large portion. Well, isn't it self serving to release greenhouse gases when the Earth is perfectly able to handle that itself? Your position isn't any better. Side: True.
That's a contradictory statement. If to save the life of a polar bear, and denying the natural cause of death is selfish. That also must indicate that eating animals for food is as selfish. They die from an unnatural death. I also don't understand how it can be selfish when we're not polar bears. It still makes no sense to say self-serving. It creates contradictory towards your statement yet again, isn't the eating of an animal self serving of ones self as well? Side: I resemble that remark.
1
point
1
point
We're not talking evolution and natural selection. Environmentalists, at least me (although I don't think of myself that way, necessarily), are concerned about human damage - because we, as a species, are very damaging. I'm not going to try to save every animal from being attacked by its natural predator. I'm trying to save the animals that are harmed by human actions and human carelessness. We're one of the most thoughtless and selfish species on the planet, so it's good that some people care about trying to limit the damage we do. Plus, if we ruin this planet, we're screwing ourselves. And to the comment on the other side...I most definitely don't get paid for it and I still do it. Side: I resemble that remark.
|
