CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If the national Parks Service were to be abolished, then it would be one less reason to tax us- one less government agency to pay for.
Parks could then be privatized where it would not only save us some money, but it would also improve the quality of the park. If a multi billion dollar company ran a park, more money would be set aside for the park and the company would get income, and they could hire more employees.
Apparently, you've never been to a Walt Disney or Six Flags amusement park, the other difference is that preserving wildlife and forests would be non profit and not public.
The National Parks Service is irrefutably one of the biggest waste of taxpayer money. Almost three billion dollars of our money is wasted at the hands of government bureaucrats. There is no end to the wasteful spending of Washington.
I Agree!!!! This Agency Is The Biggest Waster Of Federal Money!!! Want Proof? Go To Northeast Alabama And Go See The Little River National Recreation Area;A Glorified Swimming Hole!!!
You hate nature! You hate squirrels and chipmunks and baby rabbits! You are greedy and just want to keep all your hard-earned money! You just want to put all those rangers out of work!We need park rangers to make sure no one is doing something totally crazy in the woods like smoking pot with bears and turning them into slaves to the devil weed! Next thing you know, the bears are stealing picnic baskets and eating toddlers because they have the munchies. Are you kidding me? All hell would break loose! If anything, the National Parks Service should double their forces.
First of all bears would have to smoke a lot of pot to get the munchies considering there size, next its not the teddy bear's picnic and the world would remain intact if a bear ended up with a joint.
All the NPS does is take my money and do stupid stuff with it such as setting up national parks and employing people to write stupid rules to protect nature and abuse their power.
All the NPS does is take my money and do stupid stuff with it such as setting up national parks and employing people to write stupid rules to protect nature and abuse their power.
To be blunt, the welfare of endangered species, and the preservation of our forests and natural habitats is more important than you being able to buy that big screen television.
To be blunt, the welfare of endangered species, and the preservation of our forests and natural habitats is more important than you being able to buy that big screen television.
Shut up you Idiot! Buying a T.V. is more important because it helps the economy.
All the NPS does is take my money and do stupid stuff with it such as setting up national parks and employing people to write stupid rules to protect nature and abuse their power.
Yes! I completely agree! Thank you for pointing that out!
The National Park Service, Like NASA, Is No Longer Needed And Is Just a Drain On The Taxpayers. They Spend Money On Useless Places Like The Little River National Recreation Area In Northeast Alabama, Which Is Just A federal Swimming Hole!!
In the past 150 years, 12% of the world’s surface has been transferred into protected areas. Of that 12%, many estimates guess that at least 50% was occupied by Indigenous Peoples. Glacier, Badlands, Mesa Verde, the Grand Canyon, and Death Valley are all examples of national Parks where the land was stolen from the Native Americans' clutches. According to Park Historian Lee Whittlesly, the Yellowstone Act passed quickly and without much debate, because the land was so far west, and so unknown, that very few people could argue the specifics. “only a few fur trappers and gold prospectors had begun to explore the area thought of as one of the last bastions of ‘uninhabited wilderness’ to be discovered by white settlers”. However, despite the label of ‘uninhabited wilderness’, up to 26 indigenous tribes are believed to have lived on the land, many of which today still consider sacred land. Whittlesly speaks of superintendents attempting to make the area “safe” by eliminating “primitive savages” from the park, declaring they didn’t live there to begin with. The removal of Native Peoples even went to the extent of causing battles between specific tribes and the United States Government. National Parks may be beautiful, but their birth is spoiled by the atrocities committed to ensure their creation.
No. The rangers regulate the animal populations and keep track of endangered species. Taking their funds away would not only doom certain species (I.e. the red wolf, whose numbers reached as low as 17), but monuments like Yellowstone, Mount Rushmore, and other historical landmarks could not be preserved for future generations. Are you trying to deny your kids the opportunity to see some of the best things this nation has?
If You Are Concerned About Endangered Species, Put Them In Private Zoos!!! Historical Landmarks Can be Run By Either Private Foundations Or By The States.
Really, that is your justification for national parks?
Frankly, nature is not held at the hands of man, nature is at the mercy of nature, and if the red wolf goes extinct, that is nature, the Earth doesn't care if the red wolf goes extinct, in fact, the Earth doesn't care if humans go extinct. A new specie will replace the red wolf. Besides the wolf doesn't need our help in order to survive. It is at the top of the food chain anyway.
Is Yellowstone and Mount Rushmore and other historical landmarks really the best things this nation has to offer?
Frankly, nature is not held at the hands of man, nature is at the mercy of nature, and if the red wolf goes extinct, that is nature,
Wolves are endangered largely because of the wolf bounty that was instated in the 1600s and lasted until less than 100 years ago. If they go extinct, it will probably be because man continued to kill them indiscriminately until their population became too small to maintain genetic diversity.
the Earth doesn't care if the red wolf goes extinct, in fact, the Earth doesn't care if humans go extinct.
Is this debate about what the earth cares about, or is about what would be in the best interest of America and its citizens?
A new specie will replace the red wolf.
What species would that be, and how would they be immune to the same human-induced dangers and pressures that put wolves in the position they are in today?
Besides the wolf doesn't need our help in order to survive. It is at the top of the food chain anyway.
Humans are at the top of the food chain, not wolves. Their survival is dependent on whether we choose to protect them or exterminate them.
Is Yellowstone and Mount Rushmore and other historical landmarks really the best things this nation has to offer?
This is impossible to really answer because it is so subjective. Personally, I think American national parks are amazing examples of biological diversity, as well as some of the last bastions of survival for many endangered species of plants and animals, not just wolves. I think we should be proud of America's natural features, and seek to preserve them, even just for their own sake.
If something is not the 'best thing' a nation has to offer, does that mean it should be neglected or go without the protection it needs to be maintained?
Whether you are right or wrong, you make terrific arguments. You would make an exquisite lawyer. I guess that compliment doesn't mean much coming from a bigot who believes in aliens, but you can take it for what it's worth.
Wolves are endangered largely because of the wolf bounty that was instated in the 1600s and lasted until less than 100 years ago.
First, has government complelety elminated aminal poaching? NO!!
Second, it is obvious that the poachers are after something that wolves possess that is sold on the market.
Therefore, the most logical answer is to allow people to own wolves as do people own cows and sell them on the market. Therefore, those people have an interest of protecting the animals with their own money at the same time preserving wolves from extinction. Owning animals is not a new idea: cows, pigs, bison, chicken, and many others.
Is this debate about what the earth cares about, or is about what would be in the best interest of America and its citizens?
Sure, the previous response was inaccurate, yet it is not the job of the federal government to protect animals, if human acitivity is related to a threaten specie, the community should come together and agree on how to change their activity instead of government coercion. People are simply unwilling to change their lifestyle because of one animal, and this holds to be self evident.
What species would that be, and how would they be immune to the same human-induced dangers and pressures that put wolves in the position they are in today?
How would I know what specie would replace it? That is nature's job. There are hundreds of species created every year without human knowledge if not more.
Humans are at the top of the food chain, not wolves.
Really, what a shocker? NEWSFLASH. Humans are at the top of the food chain, but since humans don't consume wolves on a regular basis where wolves could and would consume humans; therefore, wolves are parallel to humans on the food chain as are crocodiles and sharks.
Personally, I think American national parks are amazing examples of biological diversity,
Great, I am glad you think that.
I just don't think that I should have to pay for something that I don't consume, and that is national parks; therefore, national parks could be non profit where they are financially dependent of themselves, so if I do decide to go to the parks, I pay for the service when I consume the product such as an amusement park.
Their survival is dependent on whether we choose to protect them or exterminate them.
That is my arguement, but different context.
Precisely, that is why it is more important for a community to come together and change their habits and lifestyles without force.
Two types of action, force and voluntary. Force, historically, has never worked.
If something is not the 'best thing' a nation has to offer, does that mean it should be neglected or go without the protection it needs to be maintained?
That is not what I meant. I shouldn't have to pay for something that I don't consume.
First, has government complelety elminated aminal poaching? NO!!
I never said anything about a ban on poaching. Thank you for affirming that, though.
Second, it is obvious that the poachers are after something that wolves possess that is sold on the market.
Therefore, the most logical answer is to allow people to own wolves as do people own cows and sell them on the market. Therefore, those people have an interest of protecting the animals with their own money at the same time preserving wolves from extinction. Owning animals is not a new idea: cows, pigs, bison, chicken, and many others.
People who kill wolves, by and large, want one thing: less wolves. Turning wolves into livestock is counterproductive to what both hunters and their opponents want, which is the protection of wild wolves.
There is a small minority of people who may hunt wolves for sport, but they probably would not buy wolves from a farm and shoot them in their stalls. The fur (and meat?) niche is already more than adequately filled by fur farms
Sure, the previous response was inaccurate, yet it is not the job of the federal government to protect animals, if human acitivity is related to a threaten specie, the community should come together and agree on how to change their activity instead of government coercion. People are simply unwilling to change their lifestyle because of one animal, and this holds to be self evident.
I think certain decisions, such as those that effect everyone in the nation and are basically irreversible, such as the extinction of a species, should be given to more than the nearby communities. Not that I advocate that people allow their lifestyles to be disrupted for the convenience of wolves, I just advocate for the maintenance of places where wolves and other species are permitted to live safely away from human interference.
Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with what should and should not be the responsibility of the federal government. I do know that the federal government passed the Animal Welfare Act, so apparently, it is their job, at least a little bit.
I posit wolves (and national parks, along with the other hundreds of species they protect) are national symbols and thus belong to the nation. They all play a large part in both maintaining American ecosystems and also contribute to instilling a sense of pride, culture, and national identity in citizens. These things, while not vital to survival, are some of the things I (and many others) appreciate about the United States.
I would include all monuments and national symbols under this heading. If New Yorkers decided they wanted to tear down the Statue of Liberty, or if Arizonans decided they wanted to fill in Grand Canyon, I think the rest of the country and the federal government would have something to say about that. Heritage and history may not have a monetary value but it is not worthless.
How would I know what specie would replace it? That is nature's job. There are hundreds of species created every year without human knowledge if not more.*
If you are going to claim a new animal will move in and seamlessly replace wolves, you should probably have an idea about whether or not such a species actually exists, and how they are going to avoid the same fate as wolves. Populations may speciate regularly, but large, North American pack predators are generally not in abundance.
Really, what a shocker? NEWSFLASH. Humans are at the top of the food chain, but since humans don't consume wolves on a regular basis where wolves could and would consume humans; therefore, wolves are parallel to humans on the food chain as are crocodiles and sharks.
Don't get sarcastic just because I pointed out that you made a false statement.
A gazelle may kick a lion in the head every now and then, but this does not put lions and gazelles on a parallel hierarchy in the food chain. Sure, wolves, sharks, and alligators could beat a human in a contest of raw physical strength, which is precisely why humans have at their disposal technology and intelligence that make strength irrelevant. When humans and animals compete, animals lose basically across the board. We may not eat wolves, but we may as well; we consume them in that we deliberately cause their deaths because of a perceived benefit to us.
I just don't think that I should have to pay for something that I don't consume, and that is national parks; therefore, national parks could be non profit where they are financially dependent of themselves, so if I do decide to go to the parks, I pay for the service when I consume the product such as an amusement park.
Great, I am glad you think that.
If there was a way that national parks could feasibly support themselves, that would be ideal. However, the land, plants, and animals they protect are too valuable to everyone in the present and future to allow them to disappear should such funding become unavailable.
It seems to me that you are more knowledgeable about the workings of the government than I am, so I realize some of my questions might seem foolish because they are possibly based on incorrect assumptions. But do most citizens, you included, not rely on some form of service subsidized by public funding? Public schools, roads, the police department, and so on? If people could elect to help fund only the services they themselves had use of, how would any public service be able to sustain itself? Or do you think that all these things should be non-profit and funded only when used? If so, at least that isn't inconsistent, but it seems quite possible that many important public services, and people who use them, would suffer greatly.
I never said anything about a ban on poaching. Thank you for affirming that, though
Great to be of your service.
People who kill wolves, by and large, want one thing: less wolves. Turning wolves into livestock is counterproductive to what both hunters and their opponents want, which is the protection of wild wolves.
Sure, turning them into livestock maybe counterproductive and extreme, but again, if there were people like yourself and other environmental nutjobs who would want to protect them instead of turning a profit as livestock, you and others could create an non profit where you would have an vested interest in protecting the wolves; it would be no different than a zoo, the only difference is you are a private owner of the wolves, so when people visit, ask for donations from those who care as much as you do, then this would prevent me from paying anything.
Not that I advocate that people allow their lifestyles to be disrupted for the convenience of wolves, I just advocate for the maintenance of places where wolves and other species are permitted to live safely away from human interference.
So, what is wrong with a privately owned farm particularly if the wolves are not threatening to human safety?
I do know that the federal government passed the Animal Welfare Act, so apparently, it is their job, at least a little bit.
That is meaningless because the federal government does whatever it wants.
The Constitution has been thrown out the door for years and burned. Apparently, the government has no limitations.
I posit wolves (and national parks, along with the other hundreds of species they protect) are national symbols and thus belong to the nation.
No, pretty sure wolves and parks belong to nature, the government and its laws say it belongs to the nation. Remember, the government makes up the rules as it goes.
They all play a large part in both maintaining American ecosystems and also contribute to instilling a sense of pride, culture, and national identity in citizens.
Again, doesn't mean that i have to pay for it if not consumed.
Should I pay for you food if I am not consuming it? Or your health care. or your car?
Heritage and history may not have a monetary value but it is not worthless.
Actually, it does have monetary value, otherwise why would I be paying for it?
Otherwise, it wouldn't exist. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Does it have intrinsic or sentimental value? Of course.
Don't get sarcastic just because I pointed out that you made a false statement.
Seriously, who doesn't know that? Give me a break.
Great, I am glad you think that.
So, what else do you want me pay for yourself?
If there was a way that national parks could feasibly support themselves, that would be ideal. However, the land, plants, and animals they protect are too valuable to everyone in the present and future to allow them to disappear should such funding become unavailable.
Actually, there is a way. It is called private ownership. People own private land all over the country without development, and they preserve the land because one of fundamental reason because of self interest. Since they own the property, they will protect and maintain it, and they are not even paid. Imagine what would people do if they were paid.
But do most citizens, you included, not rely on some form of service subsidized by public funding? Public schools, roads, the police department, and so on?
Sure, because all of which could be non-profit, for profit except military, police and courts.
The belief that government can provide a service at a lower cost than for profit or nonprofit is a fallacy, and in government, all services are monopolies, which means more and more money and less and less quality.
This is why the roads are in bad condition, this is why some cities the high school graduation rate is less than 50%, this is why crime is high.
Government doesn't provide cheaper and better services, it provides access that is wasteful.
If so, at least that isn't inconsistent, but it seems quite possible that many important public services, and people who use them, would suffer greatly.
No, because of economic spillover. Non profits are great because people willingly give their money to those who need it. Nobody really suffers in America due to the spillover.
India citizens suffer because too much government and no business.
Sorry, if there is too much economics and government.
It seems to me that you are more knowledgeable about the workings of the government than I am, so I realize some of my questions might seem foolish because they are possibly based on incorrect assumptions. But do most citizens, you included, not rely on some form of service subsidized by public funding? Public schools, roads, the police department, and so on? If people could elect to help fund only the services they themselves had use of, how would any public service be able to sustain itself? Or do you think that all these things should be non-profit and funded only when used? If so, at least that isn't inconsistent, but it seems quite possible that many important public services, and people who use them, would suffer greatly.
PrayerFails wants to take services but not give back to society. He wants the protection afforded to him by military and law, and will pay for it, but refuses to take full responsibility as a member of his society and pay for the services that everyone else wants, just as they pay for the services that he enjoys. It doesn't occur to him that being a member of society is give and take, that we must share burdens for each other even if we don't want them, because that is part of the trade.
PrayerFails wants to take services but not give back to society.
Actually, I do give back, and hey guess wait, I pay for the services that I use. SHOCKING.
He wants the protection afforded to him by military and law, and will pay for it, but refuses to take full responsibility as a member of his society and pay for the services that everyone else wants, just as they pay for the services that he enjoys.
Not sure where the fuck you have the audacity to accuse me of having not paying for services.
What services do I don't pay for that I enjoy. Hmmm... What are they, asshole? COME ONE!!!
Wait, I do pay for the monopolistic government services.
REMEMBER if I don't pay, I go to jail.
Apparently, what is hard for your simple yet everything is so complex mind is that I am advocating less government where I would gladly pay for the services that I consume and I already do in the private sector.
What I don't think I have to pay for is National Parks?
Why because I have never gone nor never will go to a national park?
SO, your attack on my personality and views is unjust and will not be tolerated.
Not sure where the fuck you have the audacity to accuse me of having not paying for services.
What services do I don't pay for that I enjoy. Hmmm... What are they, asshole? COME ONE!!!
You're right, the sentence was unclear. I was trying to say that you demand not to pay for them, not that you refuse (as in presently do not) to pay.
Refuse can carry the meaning of objection, but it is unclear.
Apparently, what is hard for your simple yet everything is so complex mind is that I am advocating less government where I would gladly pay for the services that I consume and I already do in the private sector.
Some services will not work with elective payment, despite benefitting all of society. This is where government comes in.
Your whole argument is essentially "Government BAD."
You're right, the sentence was unclear. I was trying to say that you demand not to pay for them, not that you refuse (as in presently do not) to pay.
No, I do not demand not to pay for services, I merely demand that I only pay for the services that I consume. These would include water, electricity, police, school, military,
What I am suggesting is relieving of government explosive duties, and allow profit and non profit entities to reassure those duties.
Again, what services do I don't demand to pay for but get for free? Waiting?
Some services will not work with elective payment, despite benefiting all of society.
This is where you are simply wrong. There is no such thing as elective payment. If you want to consume the product, pay for it.
Your whole argument is essentially "Government BAD."
Your whole argument is essentially "Governemnt GREAT."" GET ME SOME MORE.
Businesses are bad except when they need a bailout.
Then you already acknowledge your consumption of a health environment and the need to for you to fund its continued existence.
No, government doesn't protect the environment. This is your assumption that the government needs unbridled power in order to protect the environment.
People protect the environment through self interest because again, when communities understand what they are doing to the environment and can come to agreement that their lifestyle needs to change, change is met.
Unlike your method, it is through force, intimidation and fear where my method is cooperation, voluntary and understanding
Those who try to use force as a means to a particularly action, it is has failed miserably and futile. Forcing people to do things without consent is highly ineffective.
Examples:
Welfare-I am forced to pay for welfare, yet poverty still exists, or people have to voluntarily want to work for a living. Nobody can force them to work.
SIN TAX is a form of coercion by government to get to force you to change your habits.
slaves worked to row the boat before steam powered machines were put to use.
Taking and securing valuable resources for yourself (ie property) by definition requires some type of force. With out a force to counter others who want your possession and who are willing to steal, fight, etc to take it from you you'll be defenseless. In a sense what is yours is defined by your ability to defend it, most people really don't have much defense so defense of individual property tends to be collectivized(ie police). When a kid walks out of a store with something he didn't pay for, security guards force him to stay till the parents or the violence monopoly gets there.
Thats interesting, If sin tax is a form of coercion then it can be argued that needing a job to survive is most certainly a type of coercion. After all, your habits are your own right?
Pardon me sir, natural wonders of the world that exist in our own back yards. Excuse me...
So you are saying as the dominant, most sentient being on this planet, we have no responsibility to take care of it? To maintain ourselves as the dominant species?
The red wolf was actually a lower class of wolves that other wolves preyed upon. That does not make them at the top of the food chain. I thought we were as primary hunters, or did I miss that fact too?
Did you forget bears that are native to the same region as the red wolf? If your excuse is that for a wolf, what is it for the protected Brown Pelican?
We won't demolish Mt. Rushmore if National Parks Service is abolished. We would sell it to a corporation, which will be able use it beater. It would sell tickets, make more money, and be able to hire more people.
So we need to spend $3 billion on some fuggin' wolves? Mt. Rushmore ain't that pretty. National Parks Service is just another BS reason to suck us dry. All the rangers are good for is a hassle. Screw 'em.
1. Without the wolves, a species dies. Causing another secondary species to die.
2. Without Mt. Rushmore or other monuments, our culture will die, and so will our society and nation.
3. If the rangers are not paid, who will take care of them? Without trees, you would die. Ever taken biology? Ya know that thing we breathe called oxygen? Trees produce it. If you want to kill a tree, you could commit suicide because you exhale the CO2 they need to survive as well.
Or perhaps you are just an anarchist who doesn't care for anyone but himself.
I also must as you to how many places you have been outside of your home. Have you ever experienced such majesty firsthand? To see the heart and soul of a man, his passion, immortalized in stone? The image of four of the world's greatest leaders emblazoned on a mountainside?
What did wolves do to you?
Watch Wall-E. Because in a few hundred years, that'll be your kids.
1. Without the wolves, a species dies. Causing another secondary species to die.
Wolves are the top of the food chain. Nothing depends on them to survive.
2. Without Mt. Rushmore or other monuments, our culture will die, and so will our society and nation.
Our culture was robust and thriving before Mt.Rushmore was ever built. We didn't need it then and don't need it now. Anyways, how much can it really cost to maintain statues of stone?
3. If the rangers are not paid, who will take care of them?
They will take care of themselves. Let them get real jobs producing something of actual value rather than acting in behalf of parasitic bureaucrats.
Without trees, you would die. Ever taken biology? Ya know that thing we breathe called oxygen? Trees produce it. If you want to kill a tree, you could commit suicide because you exhale the CO2 they need to survive as well.
There are plenty of trees in America. Worry about the Amazon if you are concerned with planetary lungs.
Or perhaps you are just an anarchist who doesn't care for anyone but himself.
I have nothing but love for all of humanity and all the butterflies and bumblebees and buttercups too.
I also must as you to how many places you have been outside of your home. Have you ever experienced such majesty firsthand? To see the heart and soul of a man, his passion, immortalized in stone? The image of four of the world's greatest leaders emblazoned on a mountainside?
I have traveled extensively and I appreciate beauty, but stone carvings don't really blow my hair back. I think the billions of dollars could be put to better use.
Yes, I believe I did. Or do you actually lack such insight to infer the deeper meaning from said animated movie?
I also noticed how you didn't argue with my other points...Do you concede those to me?
Wall-E's message is simple. If the Earth is not taken care of, it will not exist. Unfortunately for those blobs of fat that sit at their computer wishing everything else would fade away, we do not have the space age technology to send us into space for five hundred years. In other words, take care of the only planet we do have. Or die. Simple enough for you, yes?
Yes, I believe I did. Or do you actually lack such insight to infer the deeper meaning from said animated movie?
So, what is sad for your lack of insight into the deeper meaning?
As sad as it is, you are taking for granted under the presumption of one possible future as fact. There is absolutely no factual or certain evidence that the points made in Wall-E are fact because apparently, for yourself, the future is easily predictable.
If the Earth is not taken care of, it will not exist.
The Earth has been in existence for 6 billion years. Where is it going? Nowhere.
Humans as of right right now are physically unable to destroy the Earth. When humans are gone, the Earth will fix itself as it did before. The Earth survived tectonic plates shifts, asteroids, ice ages, super volcanoes, massive earthquakes.
Unfortunately for those blobs of fat that sit at their computer wishing everything else would fade away, we do not have the space age technology to send us into space for five hundred years.
Who is wishing the world away? You are the fear monger.
The Earth has been in existence for 6 billion years. Where is it going? Nowhere.
Humans as of right right now are physically unable to destroy the Earth. When humans are gone, the Earth will fix itself as it did before. The Earth survived tectonic plates shifts, asteroids, ice ages, super volcanoes, massive earthquakes.
If you bothered to read from context, "destroy the earth" means that we are making the Earth uninhabitable for ourselves.
It's really telling that you care so little for yourself and your species that you'd rather throw some dollars around buying glitter than giving some of yourself to keep this world fresh and pure for future generations. I hate people like you not because of your opinions, but because you have given up on our ability to have a clean, nice Earth for thousands of years and collectively form a passively-suicidal, selfish cancer to our species.
The rest of us are panicking trying to figure out how to cleanup after messes that your type both create and fight to protect.
Who is wishing the world away? You are the fear monger.
You live in denial. Our species is dying at your collective hands. It is such a painful, terrible, wretched reality that your mind cannot comprehend what it means. Therefore you deny it, and actively fight for policies and behaviours that are especially dangerous to the rest of us. It's as if you're trying to prove a point to yourself with our health on the line.
You defend industry which dumps toxic waste into our waters and airways. You fight to deregulate provisions that punish dirty factories. You argue that our forests and animal life need not be protected so that it may die.
If you bothered to read from context, "destroy the earth" means that we are making the Earth uninhabitable for ourselves.
Well, if "destroy the Earth" doesn't mean physically destroying the Earth, what words in your context should be used to describe this phenomenon?
Otherwise, making the Earth uninhabitable for ourselves would be unsustainable lifestyle.
It's really telling that you care so little for yourself and your species that you'd rather throw some dollars around buying glitter than giving some of yourself to keep this world fresh and pure for future generations.
Actually, I do care for myself by the way.
I hate people like you not because of your opinions, but because you have given up on our ability to have a clean, nice Earth for thousands of years and collectively form a passively-suicidal, selfish cancer to our species.
Are you trying to make me feel guilty or remorse? CRY ME A RIVER
The rest of us are panicking trying to figure out how to cleanup after messes that your type both create and fight to protect.
Why are you panicking? The Earth is just fine, and it will continue to be just fine. Global Warming isn't a factor. GW
There are less environmental nutjobs than us. People are more concerned about our financial future than environmental future.
Environmental preservation shouldn't come at force with the hands of government bureaucrats but at the hands of the free market where people are willingly and voluntarily seek environmental friendly products and services.
We know the free market works for environmental solutions.
The first was horse manure. Horse manure was so bad in large cities that it was polluting water and food, and frankly it was smelly and an eye sore. So, what did the free market do? It responded, and the car was invented, well, not everyone could afford a car, then the free market responded again, and Henry Ford invented the assembly line, so cars could be assembled at a low cost.
Our species is dying at your collective hands.
Really? How? According to this data, there has been a constant linear increase in the world's population at 6.67 billion people.
It is such a painful, terrible, wretched reality that your mind cannot comprehend what it means.
The real tragedy is the painful, terrible and wretched delusion that your mind creates through fear mongering such as the oh no, the world is going to end, where is my government aka Captain Planet, do something now, force others to do the same as I because I am smarter than all those other fools, we must save the world.
You defend industry which dumps toxic waste into our waters and airways. You fight to deregulate provisions that punish dirty factories. You argue that our forests and animal life need not be protected so that it may die.
Well, if "destroy the Earth" doesn't mean physically destroying the Earth, what words in your context should be used to describe this phenomenon?
The energy required to literally destroy the earth is well beyond that in our present possession and it frankly defies the imagination how we would be able to obtain so much in the near future.
Therefore I must mean that we are destroying Earth's ecosystems which support higher life such as ourselves.
Actually, I do care for myself by the way.
Apparently not, or rather you care for yourself the same way a heavy smoker does.
Are you trying to make me feel guilty or remorse? CRY ME A RIVER
It isn't within my power to make you remorseful, therefore I take the option of explaining to other readers why I dislike what you are doing.
Why are you panicking? The Earth is just fine, and it will continue to be just fine. Global Warming isn't a factor. GW
Free market conservatives in the GOP are going to fight efforts to make the environment cleaner. They will attempt to intimidate scientists into not reporting their findings. It is in everybody's interests to have a clean environment, to forestall climate change, and to not lose our ecology but financial interests have taken possession of the issue and have driven a large population to fight against what we all want.
There are less environmental nutjobs than us. People are more concerned about our financial future than environmental future.
I'm sure that the next species which inherits the Earth when ours is dead will thank us all for the wealth we made available to it.
Environmental preservation shouldn't come at force with the hands of government bureaucrats but at the hands of the free market where people are willingly and voluntarily seek environmental friendly products and services.
Our current ecological dilemma exists because of industrialisation which was encouraged by the free market at the expense of the environment. Before there were any regulations factories and businesses dumped their waste into the nearest convenient river or pit. Remember: the free market works with goods and services for money. It does not care about the environment or morality.
We know the free market works for environmental solutions.
I don't know how you can say such a thing without being either willfully ignorant or deceptive. The number of ecological disasters brought on by lack of regulations and fines for pollution dumping are so plentiful that it defies imagination how you couldn't be aware of them.
It's as if you just told me "lack of police and military works for large populations and nations."
The first was horse manure. Horse manure was so bad in large cities that it was polluting water and food, and frankly it was smelly and an eye sore. So, what did the free market do?
The free market responded by dumping horse manure into the rivers and lakes, along with the dead horses (or rather what remained of the dead horses, because when a horse died on the street it was taken in by the nearest butcher to be cut up and sold as meat), and waste like entrails and bones. Nearby factories dumped their waste directly into the nearest waterway.
Then we wondered why poor people were chronically sick, and epidemics were so common.
It responded, and the car was invented, well, not everyone could afford a car, then the free market responded again, and Henry Ford invented the assembly line, so cars could be assembled at a low cost.
The early development of the car was very competitive but also lead to the explosion of the oil industry eventually, and that meant for decades the threat of emissions to climate change was largely ignored and underplayed in public discourse because it would harm profits if it came to light that an industry was selling our death.
Free market failed there. It didn't help our environment to perpetuate a type of vehicle which provided a large market for an industry which is putting out toxic wastes and itself puts out emissions which can measurably affect the atmosphere.
Really? How? According to this data, there has been a constant linear increase in the world's population at 6.67 billion people.
We are eroding away our foundations, and growing larger in the meantime. When enough species die, our climate changes so that all sorts of food chains are displaced and enough of our land is destroyed, we will have destroyed ourselves.
Such pressure would cause all sorts of social upheaval, and it would severely impede our ability to sustain ourselves.
The real tragedy is the painful, terrible and wretched delusion that your mind creates through fear mongering such as the oh no, the world is going to end, where is my government aka Captain Planet, do something now, force others to do the same as I because I am smarter than all those other fools, we must save the world.
A heavy smoker might retort "My dad smoked a pack a day and lived until he was ninety."
Well, if "destroy the Earth" doesn't mean physically destroying the Earth, what words in your context should be used to describe this phenomenon?
It is plain to me (and I am no environmentalist) that the term "destroy the Earth" is most commonly used to convey the image of rendering it uninhabitable by human life.
This clarification was sponsored by the Coca Cola corporation. Delicious and refreshing.
The States Can Do A Better Job Than The NPS!!!! Let Them Manage These Places Like Alabama Does, They Have a Great State Park System And They Also Have a State Forestry Commission.
3 billion dollars is nothing compared to the 965 billion dollars we spend on our military. We would save about 200 billion dollars if we stopped fighting in Afghanistan. I believe that no one should complain about the funding of the park service (out of all things!) when we're fighting an ridiculous, expensive war. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe that we should fight to defend our country, but that is for another debate. There are many benefits of having a NPS. In short, think of what would happen if we didn't have one. Would we still have the same amount of protected, open land? Will the currently endangered species still exist? Who would guard these universally-unique, natural treasures? (Yellowstone, Redwood, etc. exist nowhere else.)
I don't see a strong argument in favour of abolishing this service. The budget is remarkably small for what it achieves (about a billion dollars from what I saw), as compared to our GDP. We spend so much more on our war machine.
With such a program we preserve the beauty of our nation, both physically and biologically, and the arguments against this seem petty and callous. In typical selfish fashion the ones advocating abolishment would rather have lower taxes than preserved woodlands and species. I don't think a true rebuttal to this needs to be made as these people draw criticism to themselves with such blatant short-sightedness.