Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remarks to the Commonwealth Club Michael Crichton (Theme: Environmentalism is really Urban Atheism)
Michael Crichton ^ | September 15, 2003 | Michael Crichton

Posted on 12/06/2003 8:16:02 AM PST by FreedomPoster

Edited on 12/15/2003 11:31:15 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last
To: 2Jedismom
I'm saving this for Hubby to read. I thought yours might want to read it too. :^)
101 posted on 12/06/2003 1:52:49 PM PST by Samwise (There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
This article is as bad as his novels. His misunderstanding of environmentalism makes him less than helpful in fighting junk science.
102 posted on 12/06/2003 1:56:53 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

Perhaps the point to stress is here is hubris, and not religion. Nobody has a monopoly on hubris.

Speaking of hubris, I've always felt that the difference between the religious view of nature and the environmentalist view is this: the Bible says Man should dominate and subdue nature, environmentalists believe that environmentalists should dominate and subdue Man.

103 posted on 12/06/2003 2:01:09 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Interesting reply. I guess all the cards get played when political humanity is engaged, now to admit, now to dismiss criticism.

I started out with a criticism of Crichton's reasoning and pointed out his error. The error is called dicto simpliciter and yes, we are the better for faulting his resort to fallacious propaganda. It's too bad, because I think the criticism of the hubristic environmentalist is warranted.

But on a deeper level concerning the value of critical thinking across the board, we should begin to recognize that both extremes, dogmatism and mysticism, are not a special prejudice of some past age. Nor is our present dispostion to technology or political procedure exempt from either extremes.

104 posted on 12/06/2003 2:18:14 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I found his statements that those who banned DDT knew they were lying to be especially interesting and worth researching, worth repeating.

Look it up. He's right-on with his facts. Rachel Carson's silly little book killed more people than Stalin, Hitler and Mao combined or all religious wars in history. And they turned her birthplace in Springdale PA into a National Historic Landmark and troop school children there every day to indoctrinate them into their pagan Enviro Religion.

105 posted on 12/06/2003 2:18:59 PM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Interesting. Although if you let me be finicky, I would point out that you have given the difference between a biblical view and the environmentalist view.

This is an important distinction in light of this discussion because it's so easy commit another version of the same old fallacy of mistaking some part for the whole, that a religious view of nature = a biblical view of nature.

106 posted on 12/06/2003 2:30:23 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
LOL, perfect!

P.J. is the best, I need to find the copy of The Atlantic I bought to read the article it had from him on Iraq.
107 posted on 12/06/2003 2:31:49 PM PST by FreedomPoster (this space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
You disagree with a large number percentage of those posting on this thread, nearly all. Care to articulate why you think that?
108 posted on 12/06/2003 2:33:32 PM PST by FreedomPoster (this space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Ditto; liberallarry
A DDT link.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/710158/posts
109 posted on 12/06/2003 2:38:59 PM PST by FreedomPoster (this space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
You're right, that was sloppy of me. As a matter of fact, there were quite a few primitive religions (and some present-day) that take the natural view. The Nazi's were pagan nature worshipers and the encouraged the "stong should dominate the weak" view of childrearing (and pretty much everything else).
110 posted on 12/06/2003 4:16:24 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Bump.
111 posted on 12/06/2003 4:17:24 PM PST by Argh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KAUAIBOUND
The closest comparison I can make with the "fundamental religion" of environmentalism is that of the suicidal religion of Islamic fundamentalism.

Disagree. Marxism has many of the characteristics of a religion (prophecies, inerrant scripture, promises of a better future, etc), and it takes the place of (normal) religion for its true believers. That's what the enviros are.

Green on the outside, red on the inside

(Green is the color of Islam, though...)

112 posted on 12/06/2003 4:43:19 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
bump
113 posted on 12/06/2003 4:53:03 PM PST by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
BTTT
114 posted on 12/06/2003 5:16:27 PM PST by knews_hound (Out of the NIC ,into the Router, out to the Cloud....Nothing but 'Net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp
The President who spends twice as much on defense as the one who spends on welfare is the conservative

I'm not arguing with Bush's defense spending. Here is the domestic agenda:

The biggest farm subsidy bill in US history
The biggest increase in federal spending toward education in US history
The biggest new entitlement (prescription drugs) since Johnson
Three extensions of unemployment benefits
Inreases in the rate of discretionary, non-defense spending that far exceed the rate of inflation and economic growth combined

Could Gore have done more than this had he been elected with a Republican Congress? I think not.

115 posted on 12/06/2003 5:38:50 PM PST by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I hope Crichton hasn't had to go into hiding after making this great speech.

We need more bright and brave souls like him

116 posted on 12/06/2003 5:45:45 PM PST by syriacus (Ask Chuck Schumer if he would prefer to do away with lifetime appointments for Federal judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

P L A C E M A R K E R
117 posted on 12/06/2003 5:53:19 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
bump for later study. Looks good.
118 posted on 12/06/2003 5:55:09 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Long but excellent read.
Bump for reading comments later...
119 posted on 12/06/2003 6:01:06 PM PST by Publius6961 (40% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: js1138; PatrickHenry
Thanks! I pinged Patrick hoping he would use the ping list. I am glad he did :-)
120 posted on 12/06/2003 6:02:08 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
This article is as bad as his novels. His misunderstanding of environmentalism makes him less than helpful in fighting junk science.

Your opinion is usually well-regarded, but isn't expecting us to simply accept your opinion his entire point?

Can you be a bit more specific? It would certainly be more uselful (and scientific) than "na na na na... lousy writing".

121 posted on 12/06/2003 6:05:52 PM PST by Publius6961 (40% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha
I bailed when it went from "Ecology", based on logos or knowledge, and became Environmentalism, an ism based on belief like "facism, communism, or consumerism.
122 posted on 12/06/2003 6:09:35 PM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Bump for this!
123 posted on 12/06/2003 6:22:54 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I just sent the following e-mail to some correspondents, over the article:

I beg you to read the article below my commments.

I am sure any reader of my 'reply' email, thought me quite rude & perhaps a little insane to speak as roughly as I did a few weeks ago, to the news & comments surrounding the 'assasination' of a Whooping Crane here in North Texas. They were in the forum known as the Bird Nerd Network.

Here, a Harvard trained medical doctor, who has written perhaps a dozen extremely popular books which became movies ( Jurasic Park the most well known ), addresses our modern confusion.
This 'confusion' about what is truly important caused my reply of about two weeks ago.

We, our culture, seems entirely lost-when one considers that the parts of babies are literally harvested for profit-after they are assasinated ( carefully, so as not to damage the most valuable tissues ). I can give you referrence for this activity-I assure you that this is common-place & constitutes an industrial process. http://www.prolife.com/HarvestingAbortedBabies.html
"...at least 5 companies are in the business of procuring babies’ in-tact bodies, bones, blood, organs and tissues for profit. One company, Opening Lines of West Frankfurt, Ill, published a brochure in which they listed charges for various body parts including $999 for a brain, $500 for a trunk, and $325 for spinal cords. They claim they are within the letter of the 1993 law which allows for the above-mentioned reasonable payments. The hearings, which are to be scheduled by Congressman Tom Bliley (R-VA), chairman of the Commerce Committee, are expected in January when Congress returns from its recess. They will look into whether these tissue retrieval companies are violating the law."

We pay sports figures ( almost all of them ) in six figures & now, last week I heard on the local radio, in Casper, Wyo that a gathering in the public park was to open the 'season' with hot chocolate & cookies for the children with festive lights to liven the event. For some ten minutes I entirely mis-understood what 'season' they were opening! Hunting season, outdoor sports, hot chocolate & cookie season?
Only later did I realize they were forbidden to NAME the Christmas Season! It was in a public park & they could only mark a point in time which was 'generic'-chronological & non-religious.

What wonderful changes we see all round. The remarks below are from a most intelligent fellow. I read some of his books before he was 'famous'.
124 posted on 12/06/2003 6:39:53 PM PST by GatekeeperBookman ("The War does indeed have many facets; http://aztlan.net/ Look at your enemy." Listen to Tancredo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
Exactly! Fascism-its all about Fascism!

In fact, My post just moments ago-http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1035401/posts

A Real War: Fighting the Worst Fascists Since Hitler
National Review ^ | 12/5/03 | Victor Davis Hanson


Posted on 12/06/2003 5:19:31 PM PST by bdeaner




I appreciate the article & am very glad you posted-but we seem to ignore that we swim in a sea of Fascist sharks-here at home. Yes, sharks-for instance, they would & do kill our very babies in abortion mills-& they sell the parts.

The Left in America is run by & for our very own Fascists. They have very nearly overwhelmed our entire society & the culture we cherish.

From Amazon.com:

Modern Fascism, a book by Gene Edward Veith , Jr.
187 pages

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0570046033/qid=1070760653/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-0546791-9884118

The foundations of Fascism revealed, July 31, 2001
Reviewer: A reader from Seattle, WA United States
Most people are only exposed to two historical aspects of Nazi Germany - WWII military campaigns and the Holocast. This book eloquently and thoroughly presents the most important aspect of the rise of Fascism in Germany, which is in fact the development of the philosophy and world-view of progressive, anti-Judeo-Christian European high-culture.

Hitler and the Nazis should not be dismissed as insane lunatics. The terror they unleashed was perfectly rational within their world-view which was based on Atheism (paganism), Socialism, and Darwinism. With Atheism, there is no absolute right and wrong & the ends justify the means. With Socialism, the greater good is more important than the rights of the individual. With Darwinism, man is just a highly advanced animal evolving by tooth and claw - survival of the fittest! What transpired in Europe was inevitable given the prevailing philosophies.

I think that Hitler and his leutenants absolutely believed they were creating a Utopia - within the framework of their worldview.

The Nazi leaders and their actions were put on trial at Nuremberg, but the philosophers, and especially the ideas that made the rise of Nazism possible, escaped serious scrutiny. The ideas are alive and well in modern progressive circles. History is ripe to repeat itself. (ie. Hatred of Christianity, expanding socialism, and promotion of evolution in public edu-indoctrination"

Please see more on Fascism in my tagline. Thank you.

3 posted on 12/06/2003 5:40:40 PM PST by GatekeeperBookman ("The War does indeed have many facets; http://aztlan.net/ Look at your enemy." Listen to Tancredo)
125 posted on 12/06/2003 6:45:02 PM PST by GatekeeperBookman ("The War does indeed have many facets; http://aztlan.net/ Look at your enemy." Listen to Tancredo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Outstanding read. Thanks for posting this.
126 posted on 12/06/2003 7:03:40 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping!
127 posted on 12/06/2003 8:13:34 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
If this were widely distributed (published in NYT sunday mag, for instance) it could destroy the enviro movement.

That is naive. The fact is that if it were trumpeted from EVERY newspaper, published in every magazine, and reported on every TV program, the true believers would still be true believers.

Remember, none are so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

128 posted on 12/06/2003 8:35:36 PM PST by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
the true believers would still be true believers.

Yep. And there's a lot of 'em out there.

129 posted on 12/06/2003 8:38:49 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Calling bad science religion doesn't help refute the problems with the bad science. It merely makes the critics look like religious kooks. (I disliked Andromeda Strain when I first read it; Crichton's science is no better than that of the environmentalists.)
130 posted on 12/06/2003 8:51:04 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; All
Rachel Carson and her "Silent Spring" has done far more harm to this country and our world than she could ever have imagined.


Rachel Carlson, 1907-1964

In the mid 50s to mid 60s, Malaria was almost eradicated everywhere in the world due to the widespread use of a very inexpensive pesticide, DDT. During one of these years, the total worldwide incidence of NEW malaria cases was under 1000 as DDT eliminated a necessary vector in malaria's transmission: the anapheles mosquito.

Then that idiot Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" contending that DDT was weakening the shells of songbirds. This was untrue and was based on bad science. Ignorant, early "environmentalists" caused the banning of DDT and the abandonment of the mosquito eradication programs that were on the verge of eliminating malaria around the world.

Today, because of Rachel Carson and her polemical book, 1.5 to 2 million people die from malaria every year. 300,000,000 people suffer from malaria.

Thanks, Rachel.

131 posted on 12/06/2003 8:53:05 PM PST by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
More specifically: environmentalism is based on bad science; that doesn't make it a religion (even though religions often utilize bad science themselves.) One should oppose bad science by good science. Trying to re-define environmentalism as religion makes those in opposition look like they have no scientific answers to back up their claims.

As for my dislike of Crichton's writings, it's mostly a matter of personal taste; he uses bad (rather than just extapolated) scientific positions to bolster (what I find) to be poor plots. I haven't liked a single one of his books (to be fair, I only read "Andromeda Strain," "The Terminal Man," and "Sphere"; I quit watching the movies: "Disclosure," and "Congo" in the middle.)
132 posted on 12/06/2003 8:59:40 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Rachael carson was an idiot. Unfortunately, no scientific refutation of her writings appeared so she could get away with her fraud. The "scientific establishment" failed badly here. I was trying to get people to say something back in the 1950s (unfortunately, no one paid much attention to high school students then.)
133 posted on 12/06/2003 9:03:17 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

134 posted on 12/06/2003 9:12:50 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Green on the outside, red on the inside

I was about to point that out. I don't think it's possible today to consider the environmental movement without also considering the fact that environmentalists today are inextricably linked to Marxism. Has anyone ever seen an environmentalist activist that isn't also a leftist? How about conservative environmentalists? Supply-side environmentalists? I sure haven't. Indeed, the very idea is laughable, but have we considered why this is so? I'm not suggesting that we conservatives should become eco-freaks, but rather why eco-freaks are always Marxists. Does being an eco-freak drive one to Marxism, or is it the other way around?

There's something important here, methinks. We're all familiar with the description above, but why is that? What is driving these eco-freaks into the arms of Marx? Hatred of capitalism? Hatred of religion? It's happened too often for me not to think that something snapped in their minds that's causing this. I'd like to see a strategy emerge to stop whatever is doing this so future generations don't go the same route.

Drawing from Mr. Crichton's argument, here's a thought to bandy around. Say you start with an avowed Marxist. Marxism contends that religion is bad, the "opiate of the masses", and should be rejected. Only the proletariat matters. Fine and dandy. They cheer on the ACLU and try to expunge the world of religion, starting with Christianity.

There's a problem, though: the human mind is hardwired in that we need a "religion", or its equivalent. One could choose Marxism, and indeed most Marxists probably do this, but some people need something more. Christianity is out (and by inclusion Judiasm), so what's left? Islam? Too far a leap for Western Marxists where Islam isn't present to any great measure. Ah, but there's Gaia...so they go eco-freak and form the environmentalist religion. Not a religion in the technical sense so good-ol' Marx is happy, and they get their religious fix.

Thoughts?
135 posted on 12/06/2003 9:21:37 PM PST by Windcatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: nicksaunt
Hey "Nicksaunt" are you my aunt?!
136 posted on 12/06/2003 9:30:23 PM PST by I M Nick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher
I'd like to see a strategy emerge to stop whatever is doing this so future generations don't go the same route.

One has an obligation to conscience over and above the hoped for configurations of the future. After all, didn't marxism employ such a strategies in the form of five-year plans?

137 posted on 12/06/2003 9:43:51 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
"...environmentalism is based on bad science; that doesn't make it a religion (even though religions often utilize bad science themselves.) One should oppose bad science by good science. Trying to re-define environmentalism as religion makes those in opposition look like they have no scientific answers to back up their claims.

Doc,
I understand what you are saying... and for the scientists at the core of the environmental movement, that may be true. Fighting bad science with good science may work. But many of those "scientists" who are at the core of environmental belief have discovered, like many at the core of other religions, that it is very financially rewarding to stick to the dogma of their "ism." It is also ego boosting as adoring environmentalists adulate them and buy their polemics.

However, it is not the scientists (The priests of environmentalism) but the congregations, those who BELIEVE, as opposed to understanding, in ENVIRONMENTALISM, that make this a religion. THEY have accepted what they have been told by the high priests and priestesses of environmentalism as articles of their faith. THEY hold the belief that anything told them by someone NOT annointed as an "environmentalist" should be disbelieved because it comes from a disbeliever (read atheist).

Arguing facts with a "true beleiver" will not make them change their beliefs one iota.

Arguing facts with a hypocritical scientist may convince him the truth of your facts, but it may not cause him to change and give up the perks he gets by adhering to the dogma that pays the bills.

138 posted on 12/06/2003 10:16:58 PM PST by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Your post exemplifies the problems I'm talking about. It is extremely insulting to the scientists doing the work. Of the many people I work with, none are "sticking to dogma" in their scientific work. All are just reporting what they find.

Many of those in things like climatology or ecology claim that most of their most vocal opponents only have religious reasons for opposing them. From my experiences on FR (and other places, unfortunately, their claims seem correct.)

None of the scientis I know support the (defunct, if we are lucky) Kyoto protocols either. They point out that the Kyoto portocols actually make things worse.
139 posted on 12/06/2003 10:25:17 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Doc,

I believe that most true scientists will look at the facts and act only on the facts. But unfortunately there are STILL "scientists" inside the environmental movement that lend their names and credibility to the nonsense that is Global Warming despite the mountains of facts showing their position to be false. THESE scientists are the hypocrits.

Just look at the positions the staff scientists of the EPA take on tese issues. What can I conclude but that they have sold their professionalism for a mess of pottage?
140 posted on 12/06/2003 10:32:21 PM PST by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Excellent, very concise. I sort of figured a lot of this on my own, but of course he ties it all together very succinctly.

It's only rich white "liberals" who fret about all this stuff, and it is inexplicable why so many who are so unqualified are given so much power over the rest of us. Of course, they are sooooo much smarter than all of us and know what's best for us.

I've hiked thousands of miles over wilderness trails. I didn't do it naked with a pointy stick. The modern hiker or "backpacker" lives better than probably fully half the world's population - freeze-dried shrimp cocktail, titanium cooksets, ingenious (gasoline!!) stoves, nylon tents, sleeping bags and parkas, goose down, synthetics, GPS, Cameras, Binos.

Come to think of it, a big part of my conversion (or reconversion really) to the right side of the aisle was my discovery that enviromentalists and other lefty outdoor users are the most fascist bastards on the planet. Initially I thought we all had something in common - love of the Great Outdoors. But curiously, they didn't hunt, smoke, drink and never had anything good to eat in their backpacks. They complained about horses "ruining the trails" When I pointed out that the trails were BUILT by guys on horses and predated carrying your house on your back by 200 years, they changed the subject. Talk about micromanaging beeyatches, I go to the wilderness to get away from people like them.

I'm planning on a several month long trip starting in the spring. I need it.
141 posted on 12/06/2003 10:33:27 PM PST by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Shades of the Fort Fisher hermit.
142 posted on 12/06/2003 10:37:21 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher
Has anyone ever seen an environmentalist activist that isn't also a leftist? How about conservative environmentalists?

Not since Teddy Roosevelt, back when enviros were called "conservationists".

At least, being seen in the media; obviously, just from FR, there really are a *lot* of conservatives (IMO, a majority) who like the natural world enough to preserve a good chunk of it.

The trouble is, the "watermelons" are really after power. That's their goal in life, ruling their inferiors. If it weren't the environment, it would be some other unfullfillable goal, that lets them seize more and more power as they can't fullfill it.

"building true socialism", "abolishing alcoholism", "abolishing drug abuse", "making the world fair for [pick your favorite minority], [the poor], [wymmyn], [children], [who/what ever]", "making sure all the animals are happy", anything that sounds like Heaven on earth.

I really don't know what the power-mad listen to, except for something more powerful. If the enviros are Trotskey, do we need a Stalin to stop them? (pardon my cynicism, but the *voters*, the supposed power in the USA, re-elected B*ll Cl*nt*n and just barely stopped *l G*r*).

These people worship **power** with as much devotion and fervor as any true believer in a normal religion. It would be easier to convert the Pope or the Dalai Lama to Mormonism than to get the enviros to change.

All they undestand is power

143 posted on 12/06/2003 10:57:43 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; Swordmaker
It's a nasty dilemma. The (pseudo-)scientists behind the enviro movement are as honest and well-educated as Duane Gish or Hovind, or any other creationist ripoff artist you care to name, and at least as cynical.

Better science isn't going to slow then down, much less stop them. They'll just lie some more to get more power.

Better science will only convince those with a good science education; but we're not the problem. It's the miseducated, innumerate that are the problem. I don't know how to convince them of anything scientific.

Doc, you've been on enough crevo threads to see where I'm coming from.

Crichton has a point, the followers are a lot like religious people; the pseudo-scientists who are leading them know how to exploit this innate human drive.

And if they don't, the lawyers and H*l*r**s and G*r*s behind them sure do...

How do you convince someone that their faith is misplaced and they should convert to another one? My experience, it's nearly impossible.

(I'm gonna talk myself into a major depression if I'm not careful..)

144 posted on 12/06/2003 11:16:36 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: All
Can you help me out with a quick response tonight?
When Freepers say they are going to "bookmark" this article, how is that done?
I wouldn't guess the regular way I bookmark pages, since what would happen to the pages not on this one page? I mean the next numbers to click?
Am I making any sense about this? Or is there a way to "save" it on our intro pages I am missing? (Because I see links on those freeper pages that I don't know how they get there!!!
I can't seem to find answer to this on the help threads, either.
Any help appreciated, thanks, oreolady
145 posted on 12/06/2003 11:34:11 PM PST by oreolady (Have you reviewed your living will lately?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: oreolady
depends which browser you're using. Try help, search for 'bookmark'.

Netscape navigator uses 'bookmark', Internet Explorer says 'favorites'

146 posted on 12/06/2003 11:46:50 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American; oreolady
There's also the internal FR bookmark function, which oreolady may be referring to. Go back to the top of the page and scroll down to the bottom of the article - not the page, the bottom of the article. Underneath the keywords is a link labeled "Bookmark" - hit that link, and this thread will be added to your list of FR bookmarks that you can access from your profile page. Personally, I've largely abandoned that facility in favor of browser bookmarks, but there are a lot of people who maintain massive thread lists that way still...
147 posted on 12/06/2003 11:58:13 PM PST by general_re (Knife goes in, guts come out! That's what Osaka Food Concern is all about!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
I agree! Excellent read! It needs the widest possible dissemination, and because Crichton is perceived to be a Hollywood insider, it may even be published in mainstream journels.
148 posted on 12/07/2003 12:04:31 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Thanks, that's the one I meant-the FR bookmark, when I see people saying they are marking an article.
I think I will do both to articles I want to make sure to read, thanks again.
(I knew about the regular way, just wasn't sure of the page capabilities of a second and third posting!!!!)
149 posted on 12/07/2003 12:11:02 AM PST by oreolady (Have you reviewed your living will lately?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
"Let me tell you about this planet. Our planet is four and a half billion years old. There has been life on this planet for nearly that long. Three point eight billion years. The first bacteria. And later, the first multicellular animals, then the first complex creatures, in the sea, on the land. Then the great sweeping ages of of animals - the amphibians, the dinosaurs, the mammals, each lasting millions upon millions of years. Great dynasties of creatures arising, flourishing, dying away. All this happened against a background of continuous and violent upheaval, mountain ranges thrust upand eroded away, cometary impacts, volcanic eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving... Endless constant and violent change... Even today, the greatest geographical feature on the planet comes from two great continents colliding , buckling to make the Himalayan mountain range over millions of years. The planet has survived everything in it's time. It will certainly survive us."

"Suppose there was a radiation accident. Let's say we had a really bad one, and all the plants and animals died, and the earth was clicking hot for a hundred thousand years. Life would survive somewhere - under the soil, or perhaps frozen in arctic ice. And after all those years, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would again spread over the planet. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain it's present variety. And of course it would be very different from what it is now. But the earth would survive our folly. Life would survive our folly. Only we think it wouldn't."

"If the ozone layer gets thinner, there will be more ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface. It'll cause us skin cancer. So what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Do you think this is the first time something like this has happened? Don't you know about Oxygen?"

"Oxygen is actually a metabolic poison. It's a corrosive gas, like fluorine which is used to etch glass. And when Oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells - say, around three billion years ago - it created a crisis for all other life around the planet. Those plant cells were polluting the environment with a deadly poison. They were exhaling a lethal gas, and building up its concentration. A planet like Venus has less than one percent oxygen. On earth, the concentration of Oxygen was going up rapidly - five, ten, eventually twenty-one percent! Earth has an atmosphere of pure poison! Incompatible with life!"

"My point is that life on earth can take care of itself. In the thinking of a human being, a hundred years is along time. A hundred years ago, we didn't have cars and airplanes and computers and vaccines... It was a whole different world. But to the earth a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We have been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we are gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us. Let's be clear, the planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't go the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."

- Michael Crichton,
'Jurrassic Park'
150 posted on 12/07/2003 3:16:27 AM PST by MayDay72 (Socialism enslaves. Free markets liberate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson