Environmentalism without Hypocrisy

http://www.makehasteslowly.com ^

[traditio]

That secular/New Age environmentalists are untroubled by the natural destruction of the environment and animal rights activists are moved only by human cruelty suggests that environmentalists are less interested in conserving the environment than in destroying the works of man and that animal rights activists are motivated more by hatred of people than love of animals.

[Sofa King]

I've always felt that it was silly to expect the human race to never affect the 'natural environment'. We're the dominant species right now. Dominant species have always left their mark on the environment. It's the way nature works.

---

http://go.everwars.com/play.x?p=1554

[liberallarry]

I couldn't get your link to work.

[liberallarry]

I got it now. My error. Disregard post #3.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[liberallarry]

I lost interest half-way through.

Putting aside the various idiocies one can fairly ask

What sort of a world do I want to live in?
Do I place any value on the natural world?
If I keep encouraging population growth and economic development is there a reasonable chance that I will destroy the environment which sustains my life?
If I wish to restrict growth and development what concrete alterations in outlook, legal, and cultural norms must be effected?
Is there anything I can do in support of my views?

[traditio]

Environmentalists and animal rights activists are bad for the environment and bad for animals.