Leave a comment

Comments 4

little_pillar October 19 2007, 06:01:17 UTC
Not everyone has to like him-but if yah can't admit that George Carlin at least has some very valid points,your mother was taking excess of drugs while you were in utero.

Reply


beachofdreams October 19 2007, 07:29:42 UTC
Is he serious?

Reply

peristaltor October 19 2007, 19:29:04 UTC
I think so. I also think he's right.

I think folks have adopted the "Save the Planet" mantra as a shorthand for "Save the Ecosystems that Support A Continued Human Presence on Earth." The former is catchier -- though, as George notes, wholly inaccurate. He's just pointing out the discrepancies between what we say and what we mean, which is what he does best.

After all, those that involve themselves in environmental protection should do so with completely selfish motives. The environment protects and feeds us. Mess with the environment, we mess with our future.

Some people self-identify with being "tree huggers." I consider myself a forest hugger.

Reply

I prefer the term, "coral kisser". Well, not really. beachofdreams October 19 2007, 19:45:17 UTC
I see what you mean. At first it seemed as if he was implying that since "Save the Planet" has ridiculous implications, protecting ecosystems living today is likewise ridiculous. That argument I would find specious. However, I do agree that the dogmatic belief that nature is somehow very balanced and naturally stable is wrong. I happen to believe that this environmentalist worldview is a myth carried over from early environmentalism and environmental ethics, which posited that environmental disturbance is something artificial and unnatural.

To be sure, there are degrees of disturbance that are indeed unnatural, but the world wouldn't be the world without some degrees of disturbance. The task of the environmentalist is to point out and perhaps prevent unnatural disturbance.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up